Constructing criminal insanity: The roles of legislators, judges and experts in Norway, Sweden and the Netherlands

Abstract

This article provides a discussion about criminal insanity regulation in Norway, Sweden and the Netherlands, with a focus on the roles of legislators, judges and experts in the concretisation of the legal meaning of criminal insanity. The authors recognise that these three countries reflect different ideal type rule constructions that are interesting to study comparatively. The article addresses the following overall questions: To what extent and in what way do the different rule constructions also involve different views on the roles of legislators, judges and experts? And in case of competing models, which is the better solution? To investigate and eventually answer these questions, the authors analyse the content and legislative considerations of the relevant rules, how these rules are applied and understood by judges and experts, and how different understandings of insanity, of legislators, judges and experts, depend on each other. The authors show how the different rule constructions represent different considerations on the adequate roles of the legislator, judges and experts. They argue that what is important is not what precise division of roles that is settled, but that this interplay functions to secure clear and robust rules, and that each of the three countries has room for improvement in this regard.

Crimes and sentences in individuals with intellectual disability in a forensic psychiatric context: a register-based study

“…Sweden does not practice insanity defence legislation (Svennerlind et al ., 2010 ; Gröning et al ., 2020 ). Offenders with severe mental disorders can therefore be held responsible for their actions.…”

The diversity of measures proscribed measures for offenders with mental health issues

“…Tu odluku donosi sud na temelju vještakovog mišljenja. 33 Razlike u zakonima među državama vide se u svim koracima postupanja s počiniteljima s duševnim smetnjama, od definiranja pojma krivnje zakonom, do procesa vještačenja okrivljenoga, te konačno sankcija za počinjeno djelo. Tako, na primjer, Nizozemska ima "otvoren kriterij" za pojam "ludila" u kojem zakon navodi samo da osoba nije kriva uslijed mentalnog defekta ili bolesti, a ostalo je prepušteno vještacima i sudu.…”

“…Ovakve osobe služe kaznu zatvora samo u iznimnim slučajevima koje određuje sud, na primjer ako je stanje svijesti bilo samoskrivljeno ili je procijenjeno da osoba ne treba psihijatrijsku pomoć. 33 Poseban primjer je i zbrinjavanje ovakvih počinitelja u Bugarskoj koje može biti provedeno od vlastite rodbine pod nadzorom Centra za mentalno zdravlje, što je odraz kuturološke slike u kojoj obitelj ima centralnu ulogu u društvu. 23 U pretraživanju literature puno se više može naći o pojmu ubrojivosti, osobama oslobođenih krivnje na temelju mentalne bolesti, te liječenju na odjelima, nego o ambulantnom liječenju bolesnika s duševnim smetnjama.…”

Structured instruments for insanity defense evaluations: Opportunities and limitations

“…Notably, this criterion of insanity does not require a relationship between the disorder and the criminal act. It is merely about the presence of a (severe) mental condition at the time of the act—not about a specific impact either on knowledge or on behavioral control as related to the crime (Gröning et al., 2020). This is different from both M'Naghten and the Model Penal Code test and the criteria used in Italy and Brazil.…”