The standardized biological and psychological method of identifying legal
insanity is inadequate and has received theoretical criticism since its introduction.
In the case law, it is dangerously subject to disobedience by using
the method outside legal cap.
The standardized biological and psychological method of identifying legal
insanity is inadequate and has received theoretical criticism since its introduction.
In the case law, it is dangerously subject to disobedience by using
the method outside legal cap. Theoretically, the problem is based on the value
judgment of the free will, bound by legal theory and law to understanding and
mastering the conduct in the concepts of guilt and legal insanity. Despite the
theoretically comprehensively discussed distinction between the willingness
to act in both terms, the statutory definition is inadequate, which in case law
implies testing the understanding and management of acts solely through the
rules of legal insanity. As not every mental patient is always legally insane, even
every mentally healthy person is not always legally sane. The latter is not recognized
in practice or evaluated through the rules for mental disorders due to
the substantially too narrowly defined biological criterion and the procedural
evidence rule which states that in case of doubt, a psychiatrist must be involved
as an expert. Case law is having trouble with the theoretical skipping of controlling
the willingness to act through various legal institutes, especially in the
absence of a concrete legal and political decision about who and when is freed
from guilt, which should be clearly regulated, in particular, by law.
Keywords: free will, understanding and handling of acts, legal insanity, guilt,
biological and psychological method of identifying legal insanity, mental disorder,
psychiatric expertise, evidence rule.