Bedömningen kring allvarligt psykiskt störda lagöverträdares straffansvar och det rättspsykiatriska vårdbehovet

Summary Judicial consideration in criminal law of mentally disordered offenders has existed throughout history. The assessment regarding the criminal liability of a person is a complicated process and becomes even more problematic if the offense was committed during an abnormal or permanent mental disorder. Under Swedish law, all persons are deemed to have the capability to commit a crime. Sweden is rather unique regarding this aspect, because in other countries it is required that the offender should be considered sane to actualize responsibility. In Sweden, considerations are to take place at the actual sentencing, if the person suffers from a serious mental disorder they cannot be sentenced to imprisonment unless there is a special cause to do so. An assessment of whether the offender has a serious mental disorder is determined by the legal definition. The Court obtain medical opinions from forensic psychiatry, and possibly an opinion from the National Board of Health and Welfare, which is used as the foundation for the assessment. The court will, however, not be bound by any medical advice. The question is whether the Court's legal assessment is likely to "take over" the medical assessment thus preventing some people to get the care they need. Some forms of serious mental conditions, which are not covered by the legal definition, can sometimes end up "trapped" which constitutes a criminal offense and inappropriate sanctions for the individual. Furthermore, the risk of relapse could result in a disproportionately long period of hospitalization in forensic psychiatry. In the penal management of mentally disordered offenders there are currently some gaps and problems, which have resulted in a need for reform. Some proposals that the requirement for sanity shall reintroduces to Swedish law, and the need for treatment should be given greater consideration as well as the ability to decide of the legal safeguards ought to be introduced. These suggestions may partly counteract the deficiencies that exist today. Hopefully people that today risk unsuitable penalties a greater extent to get their personal need for treatment or other measures satisfied. The new possibility of intervention, in cases where the offender can be dangerous also contributes to social welfare.