Rejection of appeal against institutional placement in closed setting for young adult due to dangerousness and lack of malleability

Facts

The Criminal Court of the Vaud District of East Vaud convicted, by judgment of 16 September 2014, the defendant X of several offences, including endangering life, theft, attempted theft, threats, arson and attempted incitement to false testimony. A custodial sentence of six years and a detention order under Art. 64 SCC were imposed.

On appeal by the public prosecutor and the defendant, the Criminal Appeal Court of the Vaud Cantonal Court amended this judgment on 20 February 2015. It replaced the detention order with an institutional measure in a closed setting under Art. 59 para. 3 SCC, while confirming the rest of the judgment. The defendant was found guilty, among other things, of repeatedly setting fires over a period of one and a half years, causing significant material damage.

X. filed an appeal in criminal matters with the Federal Supreme Court, seeking, in particular, his release from the charge of arson, a reduction of the custodial sentence to a maximum of five years and the imposition of a placement measure in an institution for young adults under Art. 61 SCC instead of the institutional measure in a closed setting. He also contested the allocation of costs and sought legal aid.

Considerations

The Federal Supreme Court examined whether the conditions of Art. 61 SCC, concerning placement in an institution for young adults, were met. This measure, inspired by juvenile criminal law, applies to young adults whose personality is still malleable and who may benefit from socio-educational or therapeutic support to prevent recidivism. It is excluded for dangerous offenders or those whose personality is difficult to modify.

In the present case, several psychiatric assessments were carried out. They revealed in X. a severe personality disorder of dissocial, immature and narcissistic type, combined with mild mental retardation. The experts highlighted a very high risk of recidivism, particularly for violent acts or arson, as well as an inability to feel guilt or learn from his actions. Previous treatment attempts had failed, X. refusing any medication and denying any psychiatric disorder. The prospects for positive development were considered bleak.

The Federal Supreme Court recalled that placement in an institution for young adults requires a certain malleability of personality and a minimum willingness to cooperate. However, X. presented a personality so impaired that it was difficult to modify, and his…