刑事强制医疗程序适用条件解析

正修改后我国《刑事诉讼法》第284条规定:"实施暴力行为,危害公共安全或者严重危害公民人身安全,经法定程序鉴定依法不负刑事责任的精神病人,有继续危害社会可能的,可以予以强制医疗"。关于强制医疗程序的适用条件,世界各个国家规定也不同,但是综合起来,笔者将刑事强制医疗的适用条件归纳为三个条件:行为要件、疾病要件以及危险性要件。一、行为条件——行为达到犯罪的程度刑事强制医疗适用的首要前提是被强制医疗人     

论我国刑事强制医疗程序的完善

2013年开始实施的新刑事诉讼法增设了"依法不负刑事责任能力的精神病人的强制医疗程序",初步构建起了强制医疗程序的基本框架,但还存在适用对象过窄、适用条件模糊、司法精神病鉴定启动垄断、检察监督不具体、审判程序不全面等问题。因此,应当借鉴国外相关领域有益的经验,秉持保卫社会与保障人权并重的精神,对我国依法不负刑事责任的精神病人的强制医疗程序予以进一步完善。     

强制医疗的适用条件及其立法完善

我国现行刑法虽然从立法层面上确立了对精神障碍人的强制医疗制度,但是对适用条件没有作出明确、具体的规定。鉴于此,刑事立法应当明确规定适用强制医疗的实体条件是实施了刑法所禁止的行为,并且具有再度实施严重危害社会行为的危险性,具有强制医疗必要性的精神障碍人;在程序上,强制医疗应当由法院宣告,由公安机关送往安康医院或普通精神病院治疗。     

违背妇女意志不应该作为强奸罪的构成要件

长期以来,在刑法理论界和司法实践中,人们都把违背妇女意志作为认定强奸罪的要件。犯罪客体不仅指犯罪侵害的社会关系,而且还包括犯罪所直接威胁的社会关系。实际没有侵害妇女的身心健康并不等于不存在犯罪客体,行为不违背妇女意志不一定不侵害强奸罪的客体。强奸罪的客观要件是行为人使用暴力、胁迫或其他手段强行性交。违背妇女意志不应该作为强奸罪的要件,强奸罪的要件应该严格执行刑法规定的犯罪构成。     

不作为犯中客观归责理论的适用

构成要件该当结果的发生是不作为犯客观构成要件的一部分,同时不作为与结果之间需要具备因果关联,且结果的发生在客观上能够归责于不作为。作为与不作为适用的具体归责标准存在差异,针对作为适用的是风险制造或者风险增高理论,针对不作为适用的是风险降低理论。作为犯是制造一个原本不存在的风险或升高风险,不作为犯是本来就存在风险,但没有去消灭、降低该风险。要掌握不作为犯的不法构成要件,形式化的保证人地位理论其功能是有限的,如果结合客观归责的归责标准,互为补充,既不会抹煞各自的理论效能,又能规制构成要件的适用范围。先行行为与构成要件行为(实行行为)不是等同的,应当进一步厘清先行行为的风险、不作为的风险与客观归责理论风险规则之间的关系。即使实施结果避免措施,也无结果回避可能性的时候,不作为与结果之间欠缺规范上的风险关联,排除结果归责。     

解读客观归责理论

刑法实践中的归责问题首先是一个行为及其结果是否与法律的要求相冲突的违法性问题,而违法乃是一个法益侵害与规范违反相统一的结构,当行为客观上造成了法益侵害的结果时,行为人是否应当对该结果负责,首先决定于行为是否违反规范,而规范违反并不是抽象的,按其实质内容而言,亦即行为人的行为对行为对象制造了不被允许的风险。故客观归责理论乃是违法论中的归责理论或归责理论化了的违法论。由于构成要件并非构成特定结果之原因的构成要件,而是构成特定之违法、有责行为的构成要件,故客观归责理论并非判断因果性的理论,而是一种判断犯罪构成符合性的理论。     

精神病人强制医疗制度研究

强制医疗是一项重要的社会防卫措施 ,涉及到公民人身自由权和社会安全及治安秩序。我国目前的强制医疗制度存在着政策性、行政性太强而法定化、司法化不足等缺陷。完善强制医疗制度必须使其适用条件明确化、适用程序司法化以及执行过程合理化。     

精神病人强制医疗制度研究

强制医疗是一项重要的社会防卫措施,涉及到公民人身自由权和社会安全及治安秩序.我国目前的强制医疗制度存在着政策性、行政性太强而法定化、司法化不足等缺陷.完善强制医疗制度必须使其适用条件明确化、适用程序司法化以及执行过程合理化.     

客体不同也可适用类推

一些同志认为:社会危害行为只有在缺少刑法分则规定的客观方面犯罪方式要件的条件下,才能适用类推.高等学校法学统编教材《刑法学》也采用了这种观点,其中写道:“能够适用类推的仅仅是犯罪客观方面的某种不一致,具体说也就是犯罪行为的表现方式上的不一致,”并认为只有这样才能使类推的犯罪与刑法分则的规定保持最相类似.我认为,刑法无明文规定的社会危害行为不仅在缺少犯罪客观方面要件的情况下,而且在缺少客体要件的情况下也可以适用类推.理由如下:     

论精神病人强制医疗诉讼程序的构建

我国刑法规定的精神病人强制医疗制度存在性质不清、适用对象单一、适用条件模糊、决定主体不明以及适用程序缺失等问题,致使这一制度的现实运行缺乏程序保障。构建科学、完备的强制医疗诉讼程序,既符合正当程序和人权保障的要求,也有利于发挥医疗救助和社会防卫之功能。我国刑事诉讼法应对强制医疗的适用对象、条件、程序的启动、法庭审理以及裁判和救济等基本程序作出规定,以实现强制医疗制度的司法化和诉讼化。     

强制侦查的法律控制与司法审查

为了把强制侦查控制在合理的必要限度以内,法治国家普遍要求强制侦查必须贯彻比例原则、法定原则和司法审查原则,但我国的强制侦查在这几个方面都存在不同程度的问题;解决这些问题的基本思路应当是“以法限权”、“以权制权”和“公平救济”。其中,建立对强制侦查的司法审查制度,不仅仅是解决我国强制侦查实际存在的问题的重要对策,更是基于调整侦查权与审判权之间的相互关系、建立健全宪法权利的程序保障机制的战略需要;在合法性审查的范围内,建立强制侦查司法审查制度也是可行的。在具体设计强制侦查的司法审查制度时,既要体现刑事司法国际准则的基本要求,又要从我国实际情况出发,在司法审查的范围、内容、方式以及违法救济等方面做出适当的规定。     

Criminal law and mentally ill offenders in comparative perspective

Abstract

In this stick we compare legal arrangements dealing with mentally disordered offenders in the criminal law systems ct Belgium, Canada, Germany, the Netherlands, Norway, Sweden, and the United Kingdom. To describe relevant diffesenoes and similarities in the arrangemeats, we used a checklist containing antral aspects of adjudication, assessment and treatment of mentally ill offenders. These aspects concern: (1) the legal classifications of mental illnesses that can lead to exclusion of criminal responsibility: (2) the acceptance of diminished capacity as a partial excuse; (3) the possibilities for imposing security measures of compulsory treatment instead of or next to criminal punishment; (4) the conditions for their imposition in terms of seriousness of crimes committed and dangerousness of offenders; (5) the available hospitals or special clinics for executing security measures; (6) the role and task of forensic mental health professionals in assessing the offender's state of mind and in advising compulsory treatment; (7) the rules for duration, prolongation and termination of the measures. The findings of this comparative analysis are evaluated in light of legal protection for mentally disordered offenders.     

Involuntary detention and treatment of the mentally ill: China's 2012 Mental Health Law

The long-awaited Mental Health Law of China was passed on 26 October 2012 and took effect on 1 May 2013. Being the first national legislation on mental health, it establishes a basic legal framework to regulate mental health practice and recognizes the fundamental rights of persons with mental disorders. This article focuses on the system of involuntary detention and treatment of the mentally ill under the new law, which is expected to prevent the so-called “Being misidentified as mentally disordered” cases in China. A systematic examination of the new system demonstrates that the Mental Health Law of China implicitly holds two problematic assumptions and does not provide adequate protection of the fundamental rights of the involuntary patients. Administrative enactments and further national legislative efforts are needed to remedy these flaws in the new law.     

论逮捕必要性及其完善措施

逮捕是刑事强制措施中最严厉的一种,与公民权利保障有着密切的关系。但是当前我国的逮捕制度存在许多问题,因此为依法全面正确理解逮捕条件,切实维护犯罪嫌疑人等的人权及其他合法权益,是落实宪法及其他有关法律法规的规定,维护法律严肃性与维护社会和谐发展的需要。     

Potential legal protection problems in the use of compulsory commitment in mental health care in Norway

Compulsory commitment in mental health care represents a dramatic infringement on an individual's life. In Norway, this deprivation of liberty is based on a professional medical assessment that does not require a court verdict. This article presents possible changes that may increase legal protection for the mentally ill. The concept of legal protection has at least two definitions: the state's protection of the individual's legal rights (including the right to health care) and the protection afforded to citizens from abuse and arbitrary actions by the state. Infringements on personal liberty without consent require such legal authority as is found in the Human Rights Conventions. These Conventions have precedence over national laws. Norwegian legislation is based on confidence in psychiatry as a profession. This confidence allows professionals to treat patients against their will. In some countries, initial court action is necessary before compulsory mental health care can be implemented. This should also be possible in Norway in most cases, with the exception of life-threatening situations.     

Introduction

An important measure of any society is the way it deals with its outcasts, with those people who reject the social order or are rejected by it. A society's response to its mentally ill members is especially revealing, because it involves not only the basic conflict between individual liberty and social order but also the problem of providing adequate treatment to those who are so afflicted. The medical model of mental illness seems to demand not merely the restraint of an individual for the protection of society but also his treatment for his own benefit.     

强制拆迁利害关系人暂时权利保护制度探微

强制拆迁在新中国历史上经历了从无到有、从简到繁的过程。现实中强制拆迁被滥用,实体法及救济法制度均存在缺失。为实现利害关系人于强制拆迁中的权利保障,有必要针对性地创设强制拆迁利害关系人暂时权利保护制度,主要包括行政强制法上的行政强制诉前停止执行、行政诉讼法上的作为职责及时履行制度。     

Jones v. Gerhardstein: the involuntarily committed mental patient's right to refuse treatment with psychotropic drugs

The question of whether an involuntary committed mental patient has a fundamental right to refuse treatment with psychotropic drugs continues to be a subject of much debate. Over the past twenty-five years, psychotropic drugs have become the most common form of treatment for the mentally ill. For many patients, these drugs provide substantial benefits; for others, however, they produce severe, sometimes debilitating, side effects. Because of the possibility of serious harm to the patient and because of the potential for abuse of drug treatment by psychiatric staffs, the mental health bar generally has argued for increased procedural protection for mental patients. In Jones v. Gerhardstein, the Wisconsin Supreme Court responded to these concerns by requiring that a judicial hearing be held on the issue of a patient's competency to refuse treatment before the attending physician may administer medication without the patient's consent. This Note discusses the controversy between the legal and medical communities over treatment refusal by mentally ill patients in light of the impact of the Jones decision on institutional practice and on refusing patients. The author argues that the strictly rights-based analysis used by the Jones court has done little to benefit involuntarily committed mental patients. The author suggests alternative ways of approaching treatment refusal that might be more responsive to the distinctive needs of the mentally ill.     

The right of caregivers to access health information of relatives with mental illness

This article reviews the legal, ethical and practical challenges of complying with the Ontario Personal Health Information Protection Act (PHIPA) within the context of a Canadian mental health system that is overburdened and under resourced. The advent of deinstitutionalization has placed significantly increased responsibilities on the families of mentally ill individuals. While research evidences that involving family members in the care of their mentally ill relatives improves treatment outcomes, mental health practitioners constantly face the challenge of engaging family caregivers while also complying with privacy laws. The authors propose an Ontario Caregiver Recognition Act (OCRA) to formally recognize family caregivers as informal health information custodians based on the practice of other jurisdictions which incorporate the rights of family members actively engaged in providing care to their mentally ill relatives.     

精神卫生法的理想与现实

《精神卫生法》的立法经历了一个极其漫长的过程,最终出台的法律文本仍然存在非常严重的问题,其立法所要解决的问题所要达到的目的非常高,而与中国的现实严重脱节。《精神卫生法》立法的三大理想中,保护精神病患者的合法权益是核心,并希望立法来解决包括被精神病等一系列的社会现实问题。但是,立法脱离现实,相关的内容甚至出现了错误,表现在精神病患者的收治、实施导致人体器官丧失功能的外科手术、急诊急救、基层医疗机构的精神卫生保障等方面。由于存在不切合中国实际国情的规定,《精神卫生法》在我国的实施将会大打折扣。建议《精神卫生法》重点关注严重精神疾病患者得不到治疗、肇事肇祸的严重精神疾病患者得不到强制医疗的现象,关注财政投入不足、强制收治不规范等方面的问题。