Abstract
This paper discusses how the legal definition of criminal insanity has been altered several times in the Norwegian criminal law, most recently in June 2019. There are difficulties in communicating between psychiatric experts, legal experts, and lay judges, since the description and understanding of psychotic cognition as well as the definition of legal terms are not equally understood.
 Not all insanity cases are clear-cut. The Norwegian forensic experts must not conclude that the charged person is considered ‘psychotic’ in the legal sense if they are not clinically sure of this. The courts, on the other hand, must not conclude that a person is ‘sane’ if there is doubt about this. This paper discusses how there is little practical knowledge of how experts and courts handle such doubts, and highlights the lack of discussion of these questions in the legal sources.
Highlights
According to Norwegian legal tradition, criminal legislation has since the 13th century practiced a distinctive penal provision for criminals who suffer from insanity.[1]
Our current legislation has yet gone through great changes since the Criminal Code was passed in 1842.2 The criminal legislation was altered in 1848, 1902,3 1929, 1997, and in the current 2005 Penal Code,[4] which has been amended by a new bill this year.[5]
The medical principle is unlike the ‘psychological principle’ that most countries apply, which requires a causal connection between the medical condition and the crime
Summary
According to Norwegian legal tradition, criminal legislation has since the 13th century practiced a distinctive penal provision for criminals who suffer from insanity.[1]. Psychiatric treatment is so advanced that very few patients spend a long time in hospitals Those who are considered to pose a potential risk of new violent behaviour can be sentenced to psychiatric treatment.[10] A very ill schizophrenic person who has committed murder might be able to safely live in his own home just a few years later. This may lead some people to the opinion that some insane criminals should instead be sentenced to prison and serve a full sentence. The answer to the philosophical question of what is reasonable and just is not obvious
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callMore From: Bergen Journal of Criminal Law & Criminal Justice
Disclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
