Persons with neuropsychiatric disorders present specific and unique challenges for forensic experts and defense attorneys in the criminal justice system. This article reviews two potential criminal defenses: legal insanity and the various legal standards or tests of criminal responsibility that are used in jurisdictions throughout the United States (i.e., the M\'Naghten standard and the American Law Institute\'s Model Penal Code), and the partial legal defense of diminished capacity (lacking the mental state necessary to be found guilty of a specific intent crime). The process of evaluating criminal responsibility or diminished capacity is also presented with a specific emphasis on common issues that arise in evaluating defendants with Intellectual Developmental Disorder (Intellectual Disability), Parasomnias, Seizure Disorders, and Neurocognitive Disorders.

UNASSIGNED: Which type of information experts use to make decisions regarding legal insanity within forensic psychiatric investigations (FPI) is relatively unknown, both in general and when considering variations due to case context. It is important to explore this area to be able to counteract the effects of various kinds of cognitive bias.
UNASSIGNED: The aim was to explore whether FPI expert groups differed regarding case-specific as well as general use of information types required to make decisions on severe mental disorder (SMD). Three FPI case vignettes were presented to three professional groups involved in FPIs in Sweden (n = 41): forensic psychiatrists (n = 15), psychologists (n = 15), and social workers (n = 11). The participants reported which types of information they required to reach conclusions regarding SMD in each case. They also reported which types of information they had used within general FPI praxis during the previous year and the information types\' perceived usefulness.
UNASSIGNED: The expert groups differed somewhat regarding what type of information they required for the cases (e.g., results from cognitive testing), but some information was required in all cases (e.g., client\'s self-report). Regarding the preliminary assessment of SMD in the three cases, minor differences were found. Within the general FPI praxis, experts reported using several information types, while the general perceived usefulness of these sources varied.
UNASSIGNED: The professional groups relied partly on a \"core\" of information sources, but some case-specific adaptations were found. The professional groups\' inclination to suspect SMD also varied somewhat. This indicates a need to explore the potential consequences of these similarities and differences.

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.

This article provides an overview of medico-legal views concerning pathological firesetting in Western Europe and the Netherlands in the period 1800-1950. This article aims to answer the question how changing views on firesetting as either a culpable act or an excusable expression of pathology have influenced the actual court decisions over time. The focus will be on the notion of pyromania and its implications on criminal responsibility and relevant developments concerning pathological firesetting are placed in a judicial context. In particular, the legal effects of changing views on firesetting as either pathological or punishable are discussed and illustrated by relevant Dutch court cases. Results show a pendulum movement that can be linked to changing medico-legal views. In the first half of the nineteenth century pyromania flourished and the pathology of firesetters was emphasized, leading to a focus on treatment instead of punishment. In the second half of that century the diagnosis of pyromania was questioned and focus shifted to the punishability of firesetters. In the first half of the twentieth century the pendulum seemed to stabilize with (partially) insane firesetters oftentimes receiving punishment as well as treatment.

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.

Prompted by four questions, forensic mental health clinicians from Russia, China, Japan, Hong Kong, Australia and New Zealand provided information on both the legislative basis and current practice concerning the relationship between legal insanity, intoxication and drug induced psychosis in their six Pacific Rim Countries which account for nearly 20% of the world\'s population. Details of the survey for each contributing nation are provided. While there are significant variations in practice that have been shaped by regional legal, clinical and cultural influences there is considerable similarity in the legislation underpinning how these issues are considered. Consequently there remain similar challenges for each nation. In none of the legislative bases was the issue of drug induced psychosis specifically addressed. The authors conclude that evolving pharmaco-neuropsychiatric knowledge, societal values and patterns of substance misuse require nations to consider developments in scientific and clinical knowledge to support their interpretations of the relationship between altered mental states as a result of substance use and the legal construct of insanity.

Insanity defense is primarily used in criminal prosecutions. It is based on the assumption that at the time of the crime, the defendant was suffering from severe mental illness and therefore, was incapable of appreciating the nature of the crime and differentiating right from wrong behavior, hence making them not legally accountable for crime. Insanity defense is a legal concept, not a clinical one (medical one). This means that just suffering from a mental disorder is not sufficient to prove insanity. The defendant has the burden of proving the defense of insanity by a \"preponderance of the evidence\" which is similar to a civil case. It is hard to determine legal insanity, and even harder to successfully defend it in court. This article focuses on the recent Supreme Court decision on insanity defense and standards employed in Indian court. Researchers present a model for evaluating a defendant\'s mental status examination and briefly discuss the legal standards and procedures for the assessment of insanity defense evaluations. There is an urgent need to initiate formal graduation course, setup Forensic Psychiatric Training and Clinical Services Providing Centers across the country to increase the manpower resources and to provide fair and speedy trail.

A recent governmental report has suggested that the notion of insanity, which has not been a relevant concept in Swedish criminal law for the last 50years, should be reintroduced into the criminal justice system. This move has generated a debate over the most appropriate criteria to be included in a legal standard for insanity. We consider the fundamental question of whether a legal standard is required when introducing insanity, by looking at a legal system in which legal insanity is available but where no standard is used: The Netherlands. Overall, a review of advantages and disadvantages leads to the conclusion that such a standard is necessary. What exactly should that standard be? Is the development of different \"grades\" of insanity desirable? Legal considerations concerning what is essentially a legal notion should predominate in making these determinations-informed by psychiatric and other relevant scientific findings.