The causal relationship between insanity and offense in post-Raso Italian case law.

This article analyzes the evolution of Italian case law since 2005 concerning the criminal responsibility of individuals with mental disorders, centered on the landmark 2005 Raso decision by the Joint Chambers of the Court of Cassation. The ruling redefined legal insanity by allowing personality disorders—previously excluded—to qualify as grounds for partial or full criminal incapacity if they causally impaired the defendant's mental functioning and control at the time of the offense, using Müller-Suur's "degree of diversity" criterion to assess behavioral deviation. The article highlights challenges arising from diagnostic ambiguities, subjective psychiatric evaluations, and the broad application of the Raso rule, which have contributed to increased insanity-related acquittals and noncustodial preventive measures, straining psychiatric facilities and raising concerns about legal consistency and public trust. It advocates for clearer criteria based on a symptomatic continuum rather than rigid diagnostic categories, emphasizing the need for detailed, individualized psychiatric assessments to ensure fair and coherent judicial outcomes within Italy's civil law framework.