Abstract
Legal insanity is a peculiar element of criminal law, because it brings together two very different disciplines: psychiatry and psychology on the one hand and the law on the other. One of the basic questions regarding evaluations of defendants concerns the question of who should establish “true mental disorder,” the judge or the behavioral expert? This question is complicated, and in this contribution it will be explored based on a Dutch case that was eventually decided by the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR). We will argue that the ECtHR provides a valuable legal framework. Based on its merits, the framework could also be of interest to countries outside the Court’s jurisdiction.
Highlights
In many legal systems, a person who commits an offense can be held criminally liable
What is interesting about the case we present is that the court did turn to behavioral experts, but when the latter were unable to diagnose a disorder, the Court decided that there was a mental disorder
Legal insanity is a peculiar element of criminal law, because it brings together two very different disciplines: psychiatry and psychology on the one hand and the law on the other
Summary
A person who commits an offense can be held criminally liable. A very prominent principle of criminal law is that a person cannot be punished for an offense if he is not to blame for what he did: no punishment without blame (nulla poena sine culpa). It is considered as an exception not to hold a person criminally responsible if he committed an offense [1,2,3]. In other systems, insanity assessments may be court ordered, or ordered by the prosecution In such jurisdictions, it is much less clear that the defendant will cooperate with the evaluation.
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Free) 
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 call
