<![CDATA[This study aims to examine the judicial reasoning underlying the exclusion of the Visum et Psikiatricum in Judgment No. 586/Pid.B/2023/PN Tjk, identify the parameters applied in determining the criminal responsibility of a homicide offender, and reconstruct a more comprehensive framework for assessing criminal responsibility under Indonesian criminal law. This normative legal research employs both case and conceptual approaches. Primary legal materials, including statutory regulations and court decisions, were analyzed together with secondary materials derived from criminal law doctrines, forensic psychiatry, and relevant scholarly literature. The data were examined qualitatively using a prescriptive analytical method to assess the conformity of judicial reasoning with theories of criminal responsibility and to formulate an improved assessment model. The findings reveal that the Visum et Psikiatricum was disregarded because the court placed greater weight on the defendant’s behavioral indicators, which were considered to demonstrate awareness, understanding of the consequences of the act, and the capacity for self-control. The parameters applied by the judge encompass cognitive, volitional, and behavioral dimensions. However, these parameters remain implicit, lack standardization, and do not adequately integrate medical findings with legal considerations. This condition reflects a normative gap in the application of Article 44 of the Criminal Code and Articles 38 and 39 of Law No. 1 of 2023. Accordingly, this study proposes a three-dimensional assessment model integrating medical, cognitive, and volitional aspects as a more objective, consistent, and accountable framework for determining criminal responsibility]]>
