Use Of Coercive Measures Research Articles

Exploring the situational characteristics of drug policing directed at youth – circumstances of detection and grounds for intervention

ABSTRACT The aim of this article is to explore the circumstances associated with police interventions and the use of enforced drug tests and body searches against youths suspected of minor drug crime in Malmö, Sweden. There is a need for research on police enforcement practices directed at young people as a result of an increased use of coercive measures against youth and young adults suspected of minor drug offences in Sweden. The research questions are addressed on the basis of police documentation covering a period of one year. Approximately 67% of police interventions involved car-stops or police responses to calls for service. The documented grounds for the use of enforced drug tests are of a subjective nature, and detail signs of intoxication. Body searches were less often documented, and provided little insight into suspicion formation. 82% of the drug tests produced positive results for illicit substances. The results highlight the need to evaluate the utility and practice of body searches and enforced drug testing focused on youth.

СОВЕРШЕНСТВОВАНИЕ ПРИНУДИТЕЛЬНЫХ МЕР ВОСПИТАТЕЛЬНОГО ВОЗДЕЙСТВИЯ В УГОЛОВНОМ ПРАВЕ РОССИИ

According to Article 90 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation, one of the grounds for the use of coercive measures of educational influence is the commission of a crime of small or medium gravity. Taking into account statistical data on the state of juvenile delinquency for 2017-2021, the specific weight of the types of crimes under consideration in the total mass of registered crimes, international standards for the treatment of juvenile offenders, as well as the need to humanize criminal law policy, it is proposed to improve the institution under consideration by expanding the grounds for compulsory measures of educational influence. It is necessary to provide for the possibility of exemption from criminal liability of persons under the age of 18 for committing serious crimes that are not directed against life and health, public safety, as well as the peace and security of mankind. At the same time, in the case of exemption from criminal liability with the use of coercive measures of educational influence in the commission of a serious crime, it is proposed to establish a 5-year period for their application

ЗАРУБЕЖНЫЙ ОПЫТ ПРИМЕНЕНИЯ МЕР, НАПРАВЛЕННЫХ НА ПРЕСЕЧЕНИЕ ПРАВОНАРУШЕНИЙ ПЕРСОНАЛОМ ПЕНИТЕНЦИАРНЫХ УЧРЕЖДЕНИЙ: ПРАВОВОЙ И ОРГАНИЗАЦИОННЫЙ АСПЕКТЫ

The article presents the foreign experience of the use of coercive measures aimed at suppressing the illegal behavior of convicts and persons in custody. An important role in the legal regulation of the issues under consideration belongs to the normative legal acts of a recommendatory nature adopted by the United Nations, as well as international legal acts of penitentiary legislation. The content of the requirements for the use of force, special means and firearms by the personnel of penitentiary departments in relation to convicts allowed us to identify the basic principles that must necessarily be taken into account in national legislative acts. The authors make a number of proposals for improving Russian legislation

Meaning Analysis and Alienation: A Method of Immanent Critique in Acute Psychiatry

In acute psychiatry, where people with severe mental disorders are frequently treated, there can be contradictions between concepts of illness among, e.g., patients and healthcare professionals, and also between medical and legal aspects. These contradictions do not manifest themselves openly but are immanent in the social practices of the treatment teams as contradictions between the social level and the individual level. They can lead to alienation, which may be reflected in poorer quality of treatment, such as the more frequent use of coercive measures or poorer adherence to therapy in patients. In the normal daily routine of a clinic, these contradictions are mostly hidden by hierarchical structures or by unbalanced concepts of psychiatric illness, or external critique is used to try to solve these contradictions. However, another way of dealing with these contradictions could be to analyze the potential and causes for alienation through systematic analysis and transformation of the whole system of a psychiatric ward to reduce the level of contradiction within it. The aim of this work is to use the concept of meaning elaborated by Luhmann to identify and recognize alienation potentials as concretely as possible and thus make them accessible to immanent critique. Meaning in Luhmann's use of the term serves to reduce complexity in a social context and always opens up consequential possibilities for action. Consequential limited possibilities at the level of action in a rigid social system (which psychiatric wards can be) can-at an individual level-lead to people subordinating themselves to the rigid system to an excessive degree and thus alienating themselves from the system. Thus, a rigid system with a narrowing of consequential possibilities excludes meaningful consequential possibilities. This leads to alienating contradictions and to possibilities of world appropriation being missed. The aim of the current analysis is not to make a general critique of psychiatry but to improve the theoretical basis to better understand the problem of alienation in acute psychiatry as a symptom of system-immanent contradictions and thus open up the possibility of transforming systems, e.g., psychiatric acute care units, by means of immanent critique.

Grounds of Liability in Labor Law: Theoretical and Legal Analysis

Problem setting. In any society, actions are committed that are illegal and, accordingly, require the use of coercive measures or, in other words, measures of responsibility. The field of labor relations is no exception. After all, responsibility acts as a guarantor of the mandatory performance of the parties to the employment relationship with their obligations and compliance with the norms of the current legislation. Despite thorough research, liability issues in labor law have not lost their relevance. Analysis of recent researches and publications. A significant number of dissertations, monographs and periodicals are devoted to the issue of specifics of responsibility in labor law. Among them, we can highlight the scientific achievements of V. S. Venediktov, O. M. Lukyanchikov, I. V. Lazor, O. I. Protsevskii, S. M. Prilypka, N. M. Khutoryan, G. I. Chanysheva, O. V. Cherkasov, V. I. Shcherbiny, O. M. Yaroshenko and many others. Target of research. Therefore, the purpose of this study is to find out what are the grounds of responsibility in labor law and what is necessary for their practical implementation. Article’s main body. The article clarifies what are the grounds of responsibility in labor law and what is necessary for their practical implementation. Regarding the issue of the basis of disciplinary responsibility, the following is stated: (a) the current labor legislation should be supplemented with provisions on the basis of bringing an employee to disciplinary responsibility and contain a definition of a disciplinary offense; (b) only a disciplinary offense can be the basis of disciplinary responsibility; (c) the legislation must establish without appeal that a disciplinary offense is a culpable act or omission. Regarding the issue of the basis of material responsibility, the following is stated: (a) the basis of material responsibility is a labor offense that manifests itself as illegal actions or inaction within the framework of a single complex labor relationship; (b) such actions are of an illegal nature and are the result of culpable failure to perform or improper performance of labor duties; (c) the subject of material responsibility can be exclusively the employee and the employer; (d) non-performance or improper performance of labor duties has a cause-and-effect relationship with the damage caused. Conclusions and prospects for the development. In general, characterizing the grounds of responsibility in labor law, it is stated that they are divided into normative and actual. Normative grounds are determined by legislation and are necessary for the practical implementation of responsibility in labor law. There are two types of actual grounds for liability in labor law: disciplinary misconduct; labor and property offence. The practical part of the implementation of responsibility consists in imposing responsibility on the violator exclusively in the presence of the composition of a disciplinary offense or the composition of a labor property offense. An employee can be a subject of a disciplinary offense and a labor property offense, and an employer can only be a subject of a labor property offense. By their very nature, labor offenses are non-performance or improper performance of labor duties, which proves their existence exclusively within a single complex labor relationship.

Staff attitudes and perceptions towards the use of coercive measures in psychiatric patients.

The failure of efforts to significantly reduce the use of physical coercive measures (PCMs) in psychiatric hospitals remains a global concern. There is a gap in the understanding of staff's characteristics that may affect their attitudes and perceptions towards PCMs. This study used a cross-sectional design to examine the attitudes and perceptions of staff working at a mental health centre in Israel regarding the use of PCMs and to explore whether staff attitudes differed depending on their professional and demographic background. This study also sought to explore staff willingness to accept a policy of reducing the use of PCMs. The data were collected from 149 staff members (nurses, physicians, and auxiliary staff) working at mental health centre, using a questionnaire developed for this study. The findings indicate a low degree of support for use of PCMs among participants who were older, female, more qualified psychiatric nurses, with longer duration of employment, and those who have not participated in coercive intervention in the past year. The majority of the sample reported a low willingness to reduce the use of PCMs, and a lack of institutional support after participating in a coercive event. High hospital occupancy and insufficient staffing were perceived as contributing factors to coercive incidents. Therefore, availability of trained and experienced staff, elimination of organizational barriers, along with creating and maintaining a safe clinical environment should be a priority. Alternative non-coercive interventions should further be taught and used for managing aggressive and violent behaviour in the psychiatric clinical settings.

Zwang in der Intensivmedizin: unzulässig, aber wir tun es

The use of coercion in complex situations, such as intensive care therapy, requires special attention, as patients are in a situation of dependency and often limited self-determination. Coercion can also arise in intensive care situations, including situations where a person's natural will is overcome.Coercion as freedom-restricting, -limiting measures and forced treatment in ICUs exists in the form of formal and informal coercion and is perceived by the patient. Formal coercion includes measures such as restraints, sedation and environment. Informal coercion arises from influence, such as manipulation, inadequate or false information, lack of communication and threat.Longer-term, i. e. > 30 minutes, measures restricting or withdrawing freedom, as well as compulsory treatment, are subject to authorization.The central conflict in the use of coercion is the tension between self-determination of the patient and care, the protection of the patient from harm.In intensive care, phases of agitation, delirium, but also dementia or depressive phases, hypoactivity are commonplace in patients. The use of coercive measures in emergency situations is only possible if it has been examined according to legal and medical-ethical criteria and there are no alternatives (ultima ratio) for the use of coercion.The use of coercion as "ultima ratio" includes the verification of decision-making capacity and the assessment/examination of the critical situation. Only in exceptional cases of incapacity to consent and in the event of "imminent significant damage to health" may measures restricting or withdrawing freedom be used.Treatment in the intensive care unit is based on a current indication with medical evidence, as well as the standards and process structures. To avoid formal and informal coercion, it is crucial to establish an image of humanity in the interprofessional team that respects the patient and his autonomy and implements this in everyday life and training concepts.Concepts to be recognized and name the use of coercion and to avoid coercion include: Recognition of risk situations for coercion, standards to avoid coercion in ICUs, education and training in communication.

Law and psychiatry-current and future perspectives.

We describe relevant interfaces between law and psychiatry and current ethical and legal views and changes within the past decades. Ideas of patient autonomy and patients' rights have been major drivers of changes in legal frameworks. We describe developments in the areas of patient information and informed consent, involuntary placement and involuntary treatment, use of coercive measures, forensic psychiatry, digital mental health, data privacy, physician liability, suicide, assisted suicide, euthanasia, end of life decision-making, advance directives, legal and illegal drugs, and delegation and substitution of professional activities. There is no unidirectional pathway between law and ethics. Views, conflicts, and requirements differ between countries and within countries and will need to be balanced according to the societies' changing values also in the future.

Seclusion as a coercive measure in suicidality – daily routine or exception?

BackgroundCoercive measures continue to be an important topic in psychiatry. However, there is no proof of the effectiveness of the use of coercive measures, especially with suicidal people. For many years, attempts have been made to replace such measures with alternative noncoercive intervention options. This paper aims to clarify the situation of coercive measures, more precisely seclusions, in a general psychiatric hospital in Switzerland. It focuses on compulsory measures in patients with suicidal tendencies.MethodIn this single-centre retrospective cohort study, we used routinely collected medical data and performed qualitative analyses of medical histories to examine whether alternative measures to seclusion had been offered and/or provided to patients who had been secluded solely because of suicidality. Patients were aged 18–65 years and had received inpatient treatment at one of five adult acute care units at a general psychiatric hospital in Switzerland between September 2016 and December 2019.ResultsThere were 5,935 inpatient treatment cases during the study period. Suicidality was rated as “acute” or “very high” at least once during the hospitalization in 219 (3.7%) cases. Of these, 60 were excluded from further analyses as they involved seclusion, but suicidality was not the exclusive indication for this measure. Coercive seclusion was imposed exclusively due to suicidality in 53 (33.3%) of the remaining 159 cases, whereas 106 (66.7%) cases were not secluded. The rates of seclusion among suicidal patients varied considerably between the hospital wards (13.0% to 55.3%). Suicidal patients with non-Swiss residence status and/or lacking language skills were particularly prone to be secluded. Additionally, alternative interventions were offered and provided significantly more frequently in the nonsecluded patients.ConclusionsTo avoid seclusion due to suicidal tendencies, it is necessary to have a general attitude of avoiding coercive measures at all costs. It is also important for qualified staff to be able to deal with challenging sociodemographic characteristics of patients such as foreign-language, which may require translators and intercultural interpreters.

Current trends in restrictive interventions in psychiatry: a European perspective

SUMMARYThis article reviews current evidence on the use of coercive measures, including seclusion and restraint, in psychiatric in-patient settings in Europe. There is a particular focus on evidence regarding the use of mechanical restraint. The review seeks to describe when the use of restrictive interventions such as restraint may be necessary, to explore the use of restraint in certain specialist settings and to investigate current laws and European policies on seclusion and restraint. The current rates of restraint in European psychiatric settings are explored, with a discussion of the limitations of the evidence currently available. The article discusses various consequences of seclusion and restraint, potential alternatives to their use and strategies to minimise their use and harm to patients. The use of coercive measures from an international context is considered, to provide context.

National Strategies to Reduce the Use of Coercive Measures in Psychiatry in Denmark – A Review of Two Decades of Initiatives

Coercive measures are a major infringement of the autonomy of psychiatric patients and no medical justification exists for applying mechanical restraint (MR) to these patients currently. Knowledge regarding how preventive strategies affect the use of MR is limited. This paper aimed to understand the link between the initiatives taken by national authorities and the practical implications to MR reduction. Policy texts and the number of coercive measures used in two decades were reviewed. Trends were discussed with five experts with real-life experience and suggestions were obtained regarding how to end the use of mechanical restraint in mental health care settings.

Implementing Alternatives to Coercion in Mental Health Care

Abstract BodyThe use of coercive measures in Medicine represents a controversial issue. Even when they comply with all rules and procedures and are enacted with the intention to address the health needs of the patient, and/or protect the patient and/or others, they always represent an infringement of fundamental personal rights and require strong ethical justification.In Psychiatry the debate around coercive measures has led to a theoretical impasse, as the attempt to solve an ethical dilemma may expose mental health care to other ethical challenges and questions of competing rights. At the same time, the ongoing debate has contributed to raise the awareness that coercive practices are over-used, and mental health care is in need of a profound transformation towards recovery-oriented systems of care.The implementation and dissemination of alternatives to coercive practices is an essential component of such transformation. Relevant research has provided tools and documented successful practices, and initiatives aimed at making these resources available and adapted to different contexts are being promoted by international organizations, professional associations and associations of users and carers.1The profound transformation of current mental health care towards recovery-oriented systems of care requires resources and shared goals among the different stakeholders. Integrated and personalised care pathways, respect of human rights, shared decision making, and involvement of users and carers are essential components of this transformation.DisclosureNo significant relationships.

The field of psychiatry is in crisis. The case for causal modelling in observational data as a supplement to psychiatric epidemiology and clinical trials

IntroductionThe field of psychiatry is in a crisis. Developments in pharmacology and psychotherapy, reforms in services, increased spending and reduced treatment-gap have not substantially improved prognosis for patients in psychiatry. Mental disorder remains lethal short-term and disabling long term. In comparison, prognosis has improved dramatically in oncology and cardiology. Controversies in psychiatry are causing variation in clinical practice between hospitals, even within single-provider health systems. There is, for example, variation in rates of ADHD, use of coercive measures, and medication (type of drugs, dose and duration of medication). Current empirical methods are incapable of solving the major controversies in psychiatry. Epidemiology struggles with residual confounding, bias and reverse causality. Randomized controlled trials are expensive and time-consuming. Ethics may also be a barrier for clinical studies investigating variation in clinical practice. From a health management point of view, variation in clinical services within a single-provider system is usually indicative of variation in quality. However, the variability in service delivery caused by these controversies creates a lottery-like situation for the individual patient, who is generally unaware of the crisis in psychiatry, and blinded to the ongoing lottery.ObjectivesWe will present a third empirical approach beyond randomized controlled trials and epidemiology which may help solve the crisis.MethodsA systematic review of preference-based instrument variable analyses.ResultsWe identified relevant high quality 185 studies, though almost none in mental health.ConclusionsCausal modelling in observational data has potential as a third paradigm beyond RCTs and epidemiology, and may help solve the crisis in psychiatry.DisclosureNo significant relationships.

The use of coercive measures in a high security setting in Belgium: Prevalence and risk factors

Coercive measures are often used in forensic psychiatric settings as a strategy to manage violent and other problematic behavior. Few studies have been published regarding the use of coercive measures in high security populations. This is the first empirical study on this subject in Belgium. The aim of the present study was to examine the prevalence rates of coercive measures in Flanders' two high security settings and to identify individual patient risk factors for being subjected to a coercive measure. The study included all patients (N = 654) who were admitted in the Forensic Psychiatric Centres of Antwerp or Ghent over a six-year period. Data on the use of coercive measures (seclusion, mechanical restraint, and chemical restraint) were registered prospectively. Several regression analyses were conducted with multiple independent variables. The results show that half of the population (49.4%) was subjected to at least one coercive measure during admission in one of the high security settings. A small subgroup of patients (6.6%) was the subject of half of all coercive measures (51.0%). Seclusion was the most frequently used coercive measure (48.3%), followed by chemical restraint (12.2%). The prevalence rate of mechanical restraint was very low (0.8%) compared to previous research in similar populations. Various individual risk factors were significantly associated with a higher use of coercive measures. Clinical implications are discussed and the importance of developing international standards on recording and reporting on coercive measures is highlighted.

Serenity Integrated Mentoring and the High Intensity Network: a scheme that raises serious questions for practice and governance in UK psychiatry.

Serenity Integrated Mentoring (SIM) involved the police and mental health crisis services working in a single team, developing case management plans that allowed a seamless move from offers of therapeutic engagement (by the mental health team) to use of coercive measures (by the police) with those who persisted with frequent crisis presentations. Withdrawn after widespread criticism, the scheme raises important questions - about the practice of mental health professionals who are involved in decisions about using criminal sanctions for people presenting in crisis, about the ethical and legal status of the sharing of confidential clinical information with the police, and about the processes that professional bodies use in promoting, monitoring and responding to controversial service developments.

Body examinations of underage children committing crime - A Swedish perspective

The enforcement of a sentence requires that, at the time of the crime, the suspect has reached the age of criminal responsibility according to the Swedish Criminal Code (SFS 1962:700) as well as the Conventions on the Rights of the Child and also implicit in other international agreements. Similarly, until 2017, the Swedish Young Offenders Special Provisions Act (SFS 1964:167) required that for the use of coercive measures, a person who was on reasonable grounds suspected of a crime which might lead to a prison sentence had to have reached the age of criminal responsibility. The requirements for a body examination were extended at the time in the Swedish Code of Judicial Procedure (SFS 1942:740) to also include situations where there is an uncertainty concerning the suspect’s age. The extension regarding body examinations was a consequence of the aftermath of the refugee crisis of 2015. Uncertainty concerning the age of a person seeking asylum had led to discussions on what methods to use in order to determine a person’s age. The issue was also raised in criminal cases where the age of a suspect was unclear and concerned, more precisely, the burden of proof regarding the age of a suspect and the legal grounds for a body examination when estimating a suspect’s age. In this article I will with reference to the fundamental principles of proportionality, predictability, equal treatment and consistency scrutinize the legal grounds for a body examination when there is an uncertainty concerning age and the suspect claims to be under the age of criminal responsibility in relation to Article 3 of the Convention on the Rights of the Child that states that ‘the best interests of the child shall be…’ and similarly in Article 24:2 of the European Charter of Fundamental Rights ‘the child’s best interests must be a primary consideration’. Furthermore, I will explore what impact the practice of a body examination in those specific situations may have from a gender and diversity perspective. At the extension of the requirement of the legal grounds for a body examination in 2017, the child’s best interests were not taken into consideration. From a gender and diversity perspective, this extension implies the preservation of a prevailing structure that men with a foreign background commit more crimes than men and women born in Sweden.

On the issue of the imposition of criminal punishment and the use of coercive measures of educational influence against minors

On the issue of the imposition of criminal punishment and the use of coercive measures of educational influence against minors

Prezydent przed Trybunałem? Analiza skutków prawnych wydania przez Międzynarodowy Trybunał Karny nakazu aresztowania Omara al-Bashira i Muammara al-Kaddafiego

One of the most frightening aspects of the crime of genocide, war crimes or crimes against humanity is not so much their scale as their relationship with the sovereign power of the state, which either condone, or even participate in their making. It happens when the theoretically unlimited sovereign state power, which is connected with a monopoly on the use of coercive measures, begins to be used against its own citizens. Because of such a misuse of the state functions in the second half of the 20th century international law began to be treated as an element of protection of innocent people against the unpredictable sovereign state. Providing such a protection is enshrined in the international conventions, and in the activities of various international bodies, including in particular the Security Council of the United Nations. But so far there has not been found in the international law an ideal way to solve the conflict between the need to protect fundamental individual rights and the respect of sovereignty of the state. Creation by an international treaty of the International Criminal Court can be described as a major step on the way to the final determination of the relationship between human rights and state sovereignty. Hence, the process of its creation and first years of operation was marked by a dispute between the defenders of those values. In particular this is reflected in a controversy that caused the issuing by the Court of the arrest warrant for the Sudanese President Omar al-Bashir, suspected of committing on the territory of Darfur war crimes, crimes against humanity and genocide. One of the key issues emerging in connection with the Arrest Warrant issued for the head of state is a way to determine the mutual relationship between the obligations of states towards the international court, appointed for the purpose to prevent the gravest international crimes remaining unpunished, and the norms of international law obligating respect for the state sovereignty, by ensuring the immunity of his head is being observed. This article is an attempt to analyze this relationship, regarding the provisions of the Statute of the International Criminal Court, the wording of Security Council Resolution 1593, refering to the Court situation in Darfur and the Security Council Resolution 1970 refering to the Court situation in Libya, and also appropriate rules of customary international law and decisions of international courts.

Coercive Measures in Psychiatry: A Review of Ethical Arguments.

Introduction: Coercion is frequent in clinical practice, particularly in psychiatry. Since it overrides some fundamental rights of patients (notably their liberty of movement and decision-making), adequate use of coercion requires legal and ethical justifications. In this article, we map out the ethical elements used in the literature to justify or reject the use of coercive measures limiting freedom of movement (seclusion, restraint, involuntary hospitalization) and highlight some important issues.Methods: We conducted a narrative review of the literature by searching the PubMed, Embase, PsycINFO, Google Scholar and Cairn.info databases with the keywords “coercive/compulsory measures/care/treatment, coercion, seclusion, restraint, mental health, psychiatry, involuntary/compulsory hospitalization/admission, ethics, legitimacy.” We collected all ethically relevant elements used in the author's justifications for or against coercive measures limiting freedom of movement (e.g., values, rights, practical considerations, relevant feelings, expected attitudes, risks of side effects), and coded, and ordered them into categories.Results: Some reasons provided in the literature are presented as justifying an absolute prohibition on coercion; they rely on the view that some fundamental rights, such as autonomy, are non-negotiable. Most ethically relevant elements, however, can be used in a balanced weighting of reasons to favor or reject coercive measures in certain circumstances. Professionals mostly agree that coercion is only legitimate in exceptional circumstances, when the infringement of some values (e.g., freedom of movement, short-term autonomy) is the only means to fulfill other, more important values and goals (e.g., patient's safety, the long-term rebuilding of patient's identity and autonomy). The results of evaluations vary according to which moral elements are prioritized over others. Moreover, we found numerous considerations (e.g., conditions, procedural values) for how to ensure that clinicians apply fair decision-making procedures related to coercion. Based on this analysis, we highlight vital topics that need further development.Conclusion: Before using coercive measures limiting freedom of movement, clinicians should consider and weigh all ethically pertinent elements in the situation and actively search for alternatives that are more respectful of patient's well-being and rights. Coercive measures decided upon after a transparent, carefully balanced evaluation process are more likely to be adequate, understood, and accepted by patients and caregivers.

Prevention of crime, tort and epidemy: The use of criminal procedure for preventive purposes in Poland during Covid-19

Criminal procedure is increasingly becoming an important instrument of prevention. This is a globally observed tendency, and Poland is not an exception. There are several regulations in the Polish Code of Criminal Procedure that allow the preventive use of coercive measures. In 2020, a new and controversial regulation was introduced, authorising the public prosecutor or court to prohibit the publication of content interfering with the legally protected goods of the victim. The author criticises the new preventive measure as duplicating civil law injunctions and expresses the opinion that, in criminal procedure, preventive measures should be used to prevent crime, not every illegal activity. In addition, the article describes the criminal procedure for isolating persons obliged to quarantine themselves because they have tested positive for Covid-19 or had contact with infected persons. This raises the question of the limits of the preventive function of provisional arrest and possible abuse of the criminal process using it for aims unrelated to the traditional goal of the criminal process: determining the question of guilt of the accused.