Click here to stream the public defence
Due to copyright issues, an electronic copy of the thesis must be ordered from the faculty. For the faculty to have time to process the order, the order must be received by the faculty at the latest 2 days before the public defence. Orders received later than 2 days before the defence will not be processed. After the public defence, please address any inquiries regarding the thesis to the candidate.
Trial Lecture – time and place
See Trial Lecture.
Adjudication committee
- First opponent: Senior Consultant Dorte Sestoft, Clinic of Forensic Psychiatry, Denmark
- Second opponent: Professor Peter Andinè, University of Gothenburg, Sweden
- Third member and chair of the evaluation committee: Professor Nils Eiel Steen, University of Oslo
Chair of the Defence
Professor Emeritus Steinar Lorentzen, University of Oslo
Principal Supervisor
Professor Solveig Klæbo Reitan, Norwegian University of Technology and Science
Summary
This thesis analyzes 500 forensic reports regarding criminal responsibility and legal insanity, and is an exploratory, quantitative, registry study of cross-sectional design. Important descriptive information regarding features of the reports were recorded. Correlations were analyzed by logistic regression and contingency tables, with risk ratios and odds ratios as effect sizes, and p-value set to <0.5. All calculations were performed in a general linear mixed model. We explored whether the Positive And Negative Syndrome Scale could be used to assess symptoms recorded in the reports, and reached adequate interrater reliability with Gwet AC1.
We found that experts used psychometric instruments in half of the reports. Which instruments they used was correlated with the diagnostic and forensic conclusions, whereby we assume that experts mostly used instruments according to the psychiatric issue. The experts referred to information from many sources, including police and health records, which is recommended.
One quarter of the defendants were found criminally irresponsible. Almost 95% of irresponsible offenders were given a psychosis diagnosis, with schizophrenia as most the most frequent, given in more than 70% of the reports.
The experts’ descriptions of symptoms important for active psychotic conditions were insufficient. Around one quarter of the reports described whether the offender suffered from delusions or hallucinations at the time of the crime, even if these symptoms are crucial for the responsibility question. This indicates that even if adequate methods are used, important information is not always recorded in forensic reports.
The conclusion of irresponsibility was not correlated to symptoms present at the time of the crime for offenders diagnosed with schizophrenia, only for offenders with other psychoses. This might indicate that the diagnostic category was more important than symptoms in the experts’ evaluations of insanity, which is often regarded a common error. There were few changes in symptom descriptions before and after the court case of the 22nd July terrorist, only the collective term “psychotic symptoms” were used more often after this case.
This research contributes to a deeper understanding of the intersection between mental health and the law, with direct implications for improving forensic practices.
Additional information
Contact the research support staff.