English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Free Plan

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

Norwegian criminal law has a long tradition of using a ‘medical model’ for the definition of criminal insanity.1 Under section 20 first paragraph, letter b of the Penal Code,2 a defendant who is psychotic at the time of the offence is absolved from criminal responsibility. This provision essentially equates criminal insanity with psychosis, and does not operate with any criteria requiring causality, or any other additional (psychological) criteria as is the case in many countries.3 It has been questioned, particularly after the 22 July case,4 whether the medical

Criminal Insanity, Psychosis and Impaired Reality Testing in Norwegian Law