PDF(Sci-hub)
Abstract：
Forensic psychiatric practices and provisions vary considerably across jurisdictions. The diversity provides the possibility to compare forensic psychiatric practices, as we will do in this paper regarding Italy and the Netherlands.
We aim to perform a theoretical analysis of legislations dealing with the forensic psychiatric evaluation of defendants, including legal insanity and the management of mentally ill offenders deemed insane. This research is carried out not only to identify similarities and differences regarding the assessment of mentally ill offenders in Italy and the Netherlands, but, in addition, to identify strengths and weaknesses of the legislation and procedures used for the evaluation of the mentally ill offenders in the two countries.
Italy and the Netherlands share some basic characteristics of their criminal law systems. Yet, forensic psychiatric practices differ significantly, even if we consider only evaluations of defendants. A strong point of Italy concerns its test for legal insanity which defines the legal norm and enables a straightforward communication between the experts and the judges on this crucial matter. A strong point of the Netherlands concerns more standardized practices including guidelines and the use of risk assessment tools, which enable better comparisons and scientific research in this area.
We argue that there appears to be room for improvement on both sides with regards to the evaluation of mentally ill offenders. More generally, a transnational approach to these issues, as applied in this paper, could help to advance forensic psychiatric services in different legal systems.
We aim to perform a theoretical analysis of legislations dealing with the forensic psychiatric evaluation of defendants, including legal insanity and the management of mentally ill offenders deemed insane. This research is carried out not only to identify similarities and differences regarding the assessment of mentally ill offenders in Italy and the Netherlands, but, in addition, to identify strengths and weaknesses of the legislation and procedures used for the evaluation of the mentally ill offenders in the two countries.
Italy and the Netherlands share some basic characteristics of their criminal law systems. Yet, forensic psychiatric practices differ significantly, even if we consider only evaluations of defendants. A strong point of Italy concerns its test for legal insanity which defines the legal norm and enables a straightforward communication between the experts and the judges on this crucial matter. A strong point of the Netherlands concerns more standardized practices including guidelines and the use of risk assessment tools, which enable better comparisons and scientific research in this area.
We argue that there appears to be room for improvement on both sides with regards to the evaluation of mentally ill offenders. More generally, a transnational approach to these issues, as applied in this paper, could help to advance forensic psychiatric services in different legal systems.
摘要：
不同司法管辖区的法医精神病学实践和规定差异很大。多样性提供了比较法医精神病学实践的可能性，正如我们将在本文中关于意大利和荷兰所做的那样。
我们的目标是对涉及被告的法医精神病评估的立法进行理论分析，包括法律精神错乱和被认为精神错乱的精神病罪犯的管理。进行这项研究不仅是为了确定意大利和荷兰在评估精神病罪犯方面的异同，但是,此外,确定两国评估精神病罪犯的立法和程序的优缺点。
意大利和荷兰的刑法体系具有一些基本特征。然而，法医精神病学实践差异很大，即使我们只考虑对被告的评估。意大利的一个强项是对法律精神错乱的考验，它定义了法律规范，并使专家和法官之间就这一关键问题进行了直接的沟通。荷兰的一个优点是更加标准化的做法，包括准则和风险评估工具的使用，这使得在这一领域进行更好的比较和科学研究。
我们认为，在评估精神病罪犯方面，双方似乎都有改进的余地。更一般地说,对这些问题采取跨国方法，正如本文所应用的那样，可以帮助推进不同法律体系中的法医精神病服务。
我们的目标是对涉及被告的法医精神病评估的立法进行理论分析，包括法律精神错乱和被认为精神错乱的精神病罪犯的管理。进行这项研究不仅是为了确定意大利和荷兰在评估精神病罪犯方面的异同，但是,此外,确定两国评估精神病罪犯的立法和程序的优缺点。
意大利和荷兰的刑法体系具有一些基本特征。然而，法医精神病学实践差异很大，即使我们只考虑对被告的评估。意大利的一个强项是对法律精神错乱的考验，它定义了法律规范，并使专家和法官之间就这一关键问题进行了直接的沟通。荷兰的一个优点是更加标准化的做法，包括准则和风险评估工具的使用，这使得在这一领域进行更好的比较和科学研究。
我们认为，在评估精神病罪犯方面，双方似乎都有改进的余地。更一般地说,对这些问题采取跨国方法，正如本文所应用的那样，可以帮助推进不同法律体系中的法医精神病服务。
