Aim: This paper aimed to present a forensic case of a man who spent most of his life in prison due to bizarre thefts and to explore the forensic implications of kleptomania, particularly its impact on criminal responsibility and the diagnosis of impulse control disorders. Case Report: The case report focused on a 54-year-old male prosecuted for over 70 thefts of large motor vehicles. He had no prior psychiatric treatment or issues. The review in- cluded his developmental history, personal background, criminal history, and a forensic examination with psychiatric assessment and routine medical tests. The subject had experienced significant early life trauma, including his father’s violent death. His criminal behaviour involved repeatedly stealing trucks and buses without personal gain. The psychiatric examination showed no psychosis, suicidal or homicidal ideation, or severe cognitive deficits. His insight and judgment were fair, and he reported no psychiatric disturbances or family history of psychiatric disorders. Conclusions: Kleptomania was not accepted as a basis for a non-guilty-by-reason-of-insanity defence. The discussion highlighted that diminished capacity could serve as a partial defence, allowing evidence of a lack of mental capacity to form the specific intent required for the crime. It also questioned the diagnosis of impulse control disorder and the final forensic decisions, stressing the need to differentiate between diminished responsibility and full volitional control at the time of the crime. Regardless of the court’s decision, the subject was recommended to seek psychiatric observation.
Slijepčević et al. (2025) studied this question.