TY - CHAP
T1 - Legal insanity in The Netherlands
T2 - Regulations and reflections
AU - Meynen, Gerben
PY - 2023/1/19
Y1 - 2023/1/19
N2 - This chapter discusses the characteristics of the insanity defence in the Dutch criminal justice system. In the Netherlands, a state with a moderately inquisitorial system, insanity evaluations can be ordered by the prosecution or by the court. In only a small minority of cases is the defence raised by the defendant. A first characteristic of the Dutch insanity defence is that there is no legal criterion specifying the conditions under which the presence of a mental illness substantiates an insanity plea. This is different from other legal systems, where the criteria for insanity are usually specified—an example is the M’Naghten Rule in Anglo-American jurisdictions. A second characteristic is that, while many jurisdictions use the dichotomy ‘sane’ versus ‘insane’, in the Netherlands three levels of criminal responsibility are used: responsibility, diminished responsibility, and (complete) insanity. A third characteristic concerns the fact that forensic psychiatrists and psychologists must render an explicit opinion about the defendant's (degree of) criminal responsibility (in the absence of a legal criterion for insanity). These three features of the Dutch system remain a topic of debate. This chapter discusses the Dutch regulations and case law, together with relevant practical problems and scholarly reflections.
AB - This chapter discusses the characteristics of the insanity defence in the Dutch criminal justice system. In the Netherlands, a state with a moderately inquisitorial system, insanity evaluations can be ordered by the prosecution or by the court. In only a small minority of cases is the defence raised by the defendant. A first characteristic of the Dutch insanity defence is that there is no legal criterion specifying the conditions under which the presence of a mental illness substantiates an insanity plea. This is different from other legal systems, where the criteria for insanity are usually specified—an example is the M’Naghten Rule in Anglo-American jurisdictions. A second characteristic is that, while many jurisdictions use the dichotomy ‘sane’ versus ‘insane’, in the Netherlands three levels of criminal responsibility are used: responsibility, diminished responsibility, and (complete) insanity. A third characteristic concerns the fact that forensic psychiatrists and psychologists must render an explicit opinion about the defendant's (degree of) criminal responsibility (in the absence of a legal criterion for insanity). These three features of the Dutch system remain a topic of debate. This chapter discusses the Dutch regulations and case law, together with relevant practical problems and scholarly reflections.
UR - https://www.scopus.com/inward/record.uri?partnerID=HzOxMe3b&scp=85148387549&origin=inward
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85148387549&partnerID=8YFLogxK
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=85148387549&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - https://doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780198854944.003.0012
DO - https://doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780198854944.003.0012
M3 - Chapter
SN - 9780198854944
T3 - The Insanity Defence: International and Comparative Perspectives
SP - 274
EP - 294
BT - The Insanity Defence
A2 - Mackay, Ronnie
A2 - Brookbanks, Warren
PB - Oxford University Press
ER -