Samenvatting

During the Belgian criminal trial on Kim de Gelder, Belgian forensic psychiatry was criticized. Forensic psychiatrists seemed to be longing for the Dutch practice. Was this justified? In this article, the psychological and psychiatric report in criminal cases in the Netherlands and Belgium are compared. Subjects of criticism are analyzed. Important differences exist regarding to the competency assessment the experts, their research possibilities, the (legal) requirements to the psychological and psychiatric report and the concept of ‘toerekeningsvatbaarheid’. New Belgian legislation can be a basis for improvement. Taking the differences into account, the Dutch practice could service on improving certain criticized aspects.