Search

This paper concerns the Norwegian insanity defense and the law reform that has occurred in the aftermath of the case concerning Anders Behring Breivik's killing of 77 people in Osto and at Uteya in 201 1. The author discusses the new insanity rules that entered into force in Norway on 1 October 2020 and the specific Norwegian "medical model" tradition as the background of these rules. insanity has for many years been identified exclusively with a medical condition, and particularly with being psychotic. The discussion also includes a comparative view on English law and the author shows that the law reform involves an interesting complexity. It seems to imply significant changes to the insanity rules andpractices and reclaim the insanity problem as a legal matter. The author argues, however, that the law reform will not change the core characteristics of the medical model, but rather continue the specijic Norwegian insanity tradition. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: England, Scotland and Norway have established Criminal Cases Review Commissions to review the convictions of persons who may have been wrongly found guilty of a criminal offence.Aims: The aim of this study was to explore the Norwegian Criminal Cases Review Commission (NCCRC) practice when legal insanity constitutes grounds for possible reopening of a criminal case.Methods: We identified all cases between 2004 and 2012 where an application to the NCCRC to reopen a case was on grounds of concerns about insanity. Data were extracted from records. Differences between reopened and disallowed insanity cases and variables that may explain the NCCRC's decision to reopen a case were analysed using multiple logistic regression.Results: Forty cases were allowed, and 34 disallowed. The NCCRC relied fully and unanimously on the conclusions of the expert reports in making these decisions. In 26 of the 40 cases that the Commission reopened, psychosis had gone undetected by the courts. Such undetected cases were most often discovered in the wake of a new criminal case in connection with the defendant. If the length of the sentence were short, it was less likely that insanity had been considered by the court in the index judgement.Conclusions: The NCCRC may rely excessively on the forensic psychiatric reports. The experts' conclusions may be uncertain, given that they often have to look back several years to establish mental state and its relevance at the time of the crime. As nearly two-thirds of the reopened insanity cases had been given penalties of under 6 months, it may be asked whether such further investigation of fairly low-level crimes is the best use of resources. Copyright © 2015 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This article raises the question of the prospect of a common approach to mentally ill offenders in Europe, through a comparative discussion of the criminal insanity rules and systems in Norway and Bulgaria. The underlying motivation is to fill a gap in current legal research where the insanity discourse is still to a certain extent nationally oriented. Bulgaria is to date not represented at all in the international discussion of criminal insanity. Starting out from recognizing the different history, rules, culture and welfare of Norway and Bulgaria, the authors argue that these countries have a similar practical understanding of insanity and how it is associated with mental disorders as well as common challenges in their forensic and legal systems. These insights can provide a basis for further comparative explorations concerning a possible harmonization of insanity law in Europe., (Copyright © 2023 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd.. All rights reserved.)

Protecting human beings' dignity is a fundamental value underlying the UN's Universal Declaration of Human Rights as well as several recommendations and conventions derived from this, among them the European Convention of Human Rights (ECHR), a declaration that also takes precedence over Norwegian legislation. Still, clients' stories inform us that their dignity is not always protected in the mental health service systems. The aim of the study has been to investigate violations of dignity considered from the clients' points of view, and to suggest actions that may ensure that practice is brought in line with human rights values. The method used has been a qualitative content analysis of 335 client narratives. The conclusion is that mental health clients experience infringements that cannot be explained without reference to their status as clients in a system which, based on judgments from medical experts, has a legitimate right to ignore clients' voices as well as their fundamental human rights. The main focus of this discussion is the role of the ECHR and the European Court of Human Rights as instruments for protecting mental health clients' human rights. To bring about changes, recommendations and practices should be harmonized with the new UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (2006). Under this convention, the European Court of Human Rights has support for the application of the ECHR without exemptions for special groups of people.

About one third of defendants in homicide cases claim amnesia during the time of their alleged act. Examining the authenticity of claimed amnesia is a special challenge for forensic experts. Because the experts' conclusions have legal implications, it is useful to study the characteristics of defendants who claim amnesia regarding a homicidal act and how forensic experts assess these defendants' claims. The forensic psychiatric reports from 2001 to 2007 on 102 Norwegian defendants charged with homicide were assessed quantitatively with a structured rating form. Due to multiple comparisons p of .003 was chosen. Twenty-six defendants claimed partial and 17 claimed total amnesia. No significant differences in the characteristics of the defendants were found between the partial, total, and no amnesia claiming groups. Claims of partial or total amnesia did not change the procedures and content of the forensic experts' examination. A memory test was applied in only one case. Despite the seriousness of the crime and the difficulty of assessing amnesia, the experts did not apply psychological testing of memory function or appropriate tests of possible malingering. Guidelines or standardized procedures for evaluation of defendants who claim amnesia should be developed. This could eventually contribute to more reliable and valid evaluations by forensic experts and increase the probability of just court outcomes.

The number of homicides committed by insane persons has increased from 1980 to 1989. Among those charged with homicide and attempted homicide who have been subjected to judicial psychiatric observation, 60% are schizophrenic and 17% have paranoid psychoses. Other psychotic conditions are relatively rare. The homicides took place most frequently within the household and in most cases were psychotically motivated. The cause of the increased frequency of homicides is discussed. The liberal treatment strategy employed at psychiatric institutions, and the short duration of the treatment, are thought to be important in this connection.