Quatorze à 30 % de joueurs d’argent pathologiques s’engagent dans des actes illégaux pour financer la pratique du jeu. Cette situation clinique pourrait être expliquée par un diagnostic de personnalité antisociale comorbide, des dettes ou une mauvaise situation financière, une addiction comorbide ou par la sévérité des conduites de jeu. Ce travail porte sur la responsabilité pénale des joueurs d’argent problématiques (définition englobant les joueurs pathologiques ainsi que les formes infracliniques et intermédiaires).

Pour ce faire, nous discuterons cette question à travers différents cas de figure auxquels nous pourrions être confrontés en expertise de responsabilité. Nous aborderons les cas de : 1) jeu problématique isolé ; 2) jeu problématique comorbide d’un trouble de la personnalité antisociale ; 3) jeu problématique comorbide d’un épisode maniaque ; 4) jeu problématique comorbide d’une addiction ; et 5) jeu problématique associé à des traitements agonistes dopaminergiques.

Certaines dimensions, comme l’intensité du craving, la dimension compulsive de l’acte, la sévérité des conduites de jeu et le contrôle volitionnel, peuvent faire discuter une atténuation de la responsabilité pénale.

In total, 14% to 30 % of individuals with gambling disorder engage in illegal acts to finance such behavior. This clinical situation could be explained by higher gambling severity, associated substance use disorder, antisocial personality disorder and economic factors (debts, financial problems). The present work focuses, more broadly, on criminal responsibility of problematic gamblers.

We will discuss this question through different typical situations that medical experts of criminal responsibility may have to face. We will address each of the following cases: 1) isolated problematic gambling; 2) problematic gambling associated with antisocial personality disorder; 3) problematic gambling associated with a manic episode; 4) problematic gambling associated with substance use disorders; and 5) problematic gambling associated wiht dopamine agonist treatment.

Isolated problematic gambling, (not associated with any psychiatric or addictive disorder): it seems consensual that individuals committing infractions in this case are criminally responsible. However, impeded ability to action control and possible sentence attenuation could be discussed in case of severe gambling disorder. Problematic gambling associated with antisocial personality disorder: if the penal offence reports solely to personality disorder, criminal responsibility would be attributed. However, if illegal or violent acting is directly linked to co-cocurrent delusional symptoms, it could be a cause of criminal non-responsibility. Problematic gambling associated with manic episode: manic episode related offence could lead to negation of criminal responsibility, while a hypomanic episode may provide grounds for sentence reduction. Problematic gambling associated with substance use disorders: in France, addiction is not considered to remove nor to impede a person's ability to understand or control his actions and is excluded from criminal non-responsibility causes. However, substance induced delusional or confusional episodes could abolish a subject's discernment or his ability to control his actions yielding to penal non-responsibility. Problematic gambling associated with dopamine agonist treatment: Criminal responsibility for dopamine agonist induced gambling related illegal acts is still controversial. Nevertheless, people committing an infraction linked to associated dementia or dopamine agonist induced mania should be considered as criminally non-responsible.

Some clinical dimensions such as craving intensity, compulsivity, disorder's severity, volitional control might be forensic targets to assess criminal responsibility.