英美两国对精神病人刑事责任能力评判的演变

司法精神病学是法学的一个分支学科，其诞生和演变与法学的主旋律始终保持一致。精神障碍者刑事责任能力问题是司法精神病学的主要构成部分，英国1843年的麦克·纳顿条例是专门就精神障碍者刑事责任能力问题的法律规定，它对英美法系和大陆法系国家的相关立法都产生了巨大深远的影响。美国最近20多年处理违法精神病人的法律改革对现代诸国的司法精神病学完善具有相当大的影响力，所以研究英美两个国家这一方面的司法精神病学的历史和现状对推动我国司法精神病学的进步意义重大。     

再议毒品所致精神障碍者的刑事责任能力评定

我国法律并未直接规定毒品所致精神障碍者的刑事责任问题,国内法学界和司法精神病学界对此问题仍分歧众多。争论的焦点主要集中在吸毒者陷于辨认或控制能力丧失状态下实施危害行为时该如何评定其刑事责任能力上。从法律的角度来探讨毒品所致精神障碍者的刑事责任能力评定。主张目前实践中司法鉴定人员结合吸毒者的心理态度来评定其刑事责任能力缺乏法律依据,也不适宜对案件的处理,因此不宜由司法鉴定人员以精神病学的角度来认定毒品所致精神障碍者的刑事责任能力。     

司法精神病学鉴定中的证据和证明问题——以刑事责任能力评定为视角

正司法精神病学鉴定是司法鉴定中与法学关系最密切的一种鉴定,其中涉及的法学问题多样且复杂。笔者试从法学的角度给司法精神病学鉴定作以下定义:司法精神病学鉴定人综合各种证据,运用其专业知识(主要是医学和法学)进行医学诊断及分析论证,最后证明相关法律事实的过程。本文以刑事责任能力评定为视角,讨论司法精神医学鉴定中涉及的证据和证明问题。     

《司法精神医学》教学体会与改进构想

正1《司法精神病学》教学体会1.1课程设置目的和宗旨司法精神医学主要研究精神障碍者及其疑似者在涉及法律问题时的处置对策,包括刑事领域的刑事责任能力、受审能力、服刑能力等法律能力鉴定,也包括精神障碍服刑人员的医学干预,暴力风险评估和管理,民事、医疗特定领域的知情同意能力、精神伤残、因果关系和赔偿医学的相关问题,行政执法中的受处罚能力等。在精神障碍人的合法权利保障方面,涉及到医疗、就业、就学、婚姻等方面     

中外法医精神病学体系简介

<正>法医精神病学是一门研究人的精神障碍、精神健康与法律相关问题的医学分支学科。广义上法医精神病学研究的内容涉及与法律相关的精神障碍和各种精神健康问题,泛称精神病学与法律或法律精神病学;狭义的法医精神病学主要指依法对疑似精神障碍的违法者或诉讼当事人的精神状态和法律能力的鉴定,又称司法精神病学[1]。近年来,我国相关的法律法规日趋完善,《刑事诉讼法》第五编第四章着重对不负刑事责任的精神病人的强制医疗程序做出明确规定,同时     

时代呼唤统一的刑事责任能力鉴定标准

阐述了我国制定《精神障碍者刑事责任能力评定大纲》必要性、可行性和历史意义,对如何统一精神疾病刑事责任能力鉴定的评定标准,如何有利于同行专家和司法机关对司法精神病学鉴定结论可采信性的审查提出见解。     

论精神障碍者的刑事责任能力

我国刑法第18条规定确定了精神障碍者刑事责任能力的三分法,较符合司法精神医学理论及实践.然而,由于"精神病人"这一概念具有狭窄性与不确定性,大多数学者主张对其采取广义解释,同时存在少数反对扩张论者.本文指出精神障碍者刑事责任能力认定标准应坚持医学--法学标准,由法官最终决定精神障碍者刑事责任能力问题.     

时代呼唤统一的刑事责任能力鉴定标准

阐述了我国制定《精神障碍者刑事责任能力评定大纲》必要性、可行性和历史意义，对如何统一精神疾病刑事责任能力鉴定的评定标准，如何有利于同行专家和司法机关对司法精神病学鉴定结论可采信性的审查提出见解。     

精神病人刑事责任能力初探

<正> 在我国,在开展司法精神病学鉴定工作中,涉及得最多的是关于刑事责任能力的评定问题。可是国內法学界对这个重要问题恰恰研究得较少。要为此而责备法学家是不公平的,因为这项任务的完成不可能由一家承担。现实情况赋予了司法精神病学工作者不可推卸的历史使命,深入探讨精神病人刑事责任能力问题已迫在眉睫。司法精神病学的研究不可能脱离精神病学和法学,本文围绕这两方面的知识,对如     

精神病人的刑事责任能力

刑事责任能力是法律精神病学中的一个极为重要的课题。近年来日益受到法律精神病学家、刑法学家和司法官员的关注。广泛深入研究刑事责任能力，不但可以丰富法律精神病学理论，而且还可以直接为司法实践服务，为公正执法提供必要的科学依据。一、刑事责任能力的概念和起源虽然在古今中外的法律中，不乏关于精神病人、智能缺陷、未成年人、老年人和生理缺陷（聋、盲、哑）者违法行为的减轻或免除处罚的规定，但是，关于刑事责任能力概念的表述却是众说纷坛，分歧极多。我国司法部法学教材编辑部编审的高等政法院校规划教材《刑法学》中写到：…     

法医精神病鉴定内容架构及评定要点解析

法医精神病鉴定在刑事、民事和行政三大诉讼领域中,以鉴定意见的证据形式发挥着重要作用。然而,与其重要性不相匹配的是,法医精神病鉴定学科发展尚不完善、专业发育尚不成熟,尚不能满足社会和民众的期盼和要求,甚至引发负面评价。为进一步促进法医精神病鉴定规范化、标准化建设。以法医精神病鉴定人的视角,结合法医精神病鉴定的内容架构,重点阐述法医精神病鉴定主要项目及其作用、评定要点,尤其聚焦刑事责任能力评定,阐明当前存在分歧和困难;简要介绍法医精神病鉴定人执业要求、法医精神病鉴定质量控制;以及简述法医精神病鉴定与临床精神医学实践的区别与联系。     

刑事诉讼中法医精神病鉴定争议的反思与理论诠释

法医精神病鉴定在一些重大刑事案件中持续成为舆论关注的焦点。不论法医精神病鉴定启动与否均会陷入被质疑的困境。这既存在制度安排的问题,也存在鉴定本身的问题,还存在凭直觉判断的问题,更存在理论误导的问题。这些问题叠加在一起衍生了较为复杂的中国性问题。这一复杂问题的解决,需要合理配置启动法医精神病鉴定程序的权力(利),科学对待法医精神病鉴定本质,尊重法医精神病鉴定的医学认定,正确使用法医精神病鉴定意见中的刑事责任能力判断,在正当程序中维护法医精神病鉴定的科学性。对于非制度问题需要正确的理论诠释,避免因实践难题与理论缺陷交织触发一些不具有实质意义的纷争和枉顾科学的呼吁。     

精神病人刑事责任能力相关问题研究

受“有病无罪”观念的错误影响,长期以来法学领域很少开展对精神病人“犯罪”的研究,致使形成“精神病学鉴定专家裁判精神病人是否犯罪”的态势,忽视了对社会公共安全的保护。笔者简明扼要地介绍了美国司法精神病学近几十年的变迁,以此为参照,发表了对精神病人犯罪研究的一些看法。     

Forensic psychiatry in China

This article reviews the legal basis for the development of forensic psychiatry in China, the organization of clinical assessments, and training of forensic psychiatrists. Regulations for the management of patients in Ankang hospitals and the role of forensic psychiatrists within the Criminal Justice system are described. The primary role of forensic psychiatrists is to provide expert opinions on competence to stand trial and criminal responsibility in criminal cases. They are increasingly involved in civil court proceedings and tribunals at the request of a range of official agencies. The clinical cases assessed by Chinese forensic psychiatrists are very similar to those of their counterparts in Western countries, but the organizational and legal framework for these assessments reflects a very different system that has evolved independently.     

Emergent authority and expert knowledge: Psychiatry and criminal responsibility in the UK

In the UK context, the rise of the discipline and practice of forensic psychiatry is intimately connected with the concurrent development of principles and practices relating to criminal responsibility. In this article, we seek to chart the relationship between psychiatry and the principles and practices of criminal responsibility in the UK over the early modern, modern and late modern periods. With a focus on claims about authority and expert knowledge around criminal responsibility, we suggest that these claims have been in a state of perpetual negotiation and that, as a result, claims to authority over and knowledge about criminal non-responsibility on the part of psychiatrists and psychiatry are most accurately understood as emergent and contingent. The apparent formalism of legal discourse has tended to conceal the extent to which legal policy has been preoccupied with maintaining the primacy of lay judgments in criminal processes of evaluation and adjudication. While this policy has been somewhat successful in the context of the trial – particularly the murder trial – it has been undermined by administrative procedures surrounding the trial, including those that substitute treatment for punishment without, or in spite of, a formal determination of criminal responsibility.     

略论“鉴定留置”——由邓玉姣案说起

邓玉娇故意伤害案中的司法精神医学鉴定的过程,非常典型地暴露出了我国司法精神医学鉴定中有关＂鉴定留置＂制度缺位的严重问题。精神病鉴定虽然是一个医学问题,但它更是一个法律问题,我国对司法精神病鉴定制度的规定存在严重的缺失,对精神病鉴定等一系列问题的立法必须提升到我国立法的议事日程上来。对此,我们应当借鉴国外成熟经验,首先,应认识到对犯罪嫌疑人精神病鉴定是需要干涉公民人身自由的强制处分行为,并明确限定鉴定留置的范围。其次,对于鉴定留置的适用条件,在决定适用此措施之前必须听取鉴定人、辩护人意见,同时,鉴定留置措施只能适用于具有重大犯罪嫌疑的被指控人。再次,应明确规定对犯罪嫌疑人精神病鉴定的期间,在对犯罪嫌疑人精神病鉴定的期间不计羁押期限的基础上,明确犯罪嫌疑人精神病鉴定的时间,应当能够折抵刑期。     

Chapter 2: The Legal Position and Organizational Forms of Forensic Psychiatric Expert Examination

The practical task of forensic psychiatry, which is one of the subdivisions of psychiatry, is to give an expert evaluation, on assignment from investigatory agencies and courts, and to devise and recommend measures for the prevention of socially dangerous acts by the mentally ill. Forensic psychiatric expert examination, like forensic medical, criminal, or any other type of expert examination, aids agencies of justice in establishing the facts in a case. Forensic psychiatric expert examination is called upon to assist the investigator and the court in determining whether an individual is a criminal or a legally irresponsible, mentally ill person; whether a person sentenced to a prison term should, because of mental illness, be released before his time is served; whether the investigator and the court may pursue the interrogation of a witness or victim with mental disorders, and whether the testimony of such persons may be used as court evidence. Such an expert examination is necessary in a civil suit in deciding the question of an individual's competence.     

The forensic psychiatrist of the future

The rate of change in scientific knowledge and the growing psychiatric sophistication of attorneys and courts have made it increasingly difficult for forensic psychiatrists to retain proficiency in the full spectrum of potential professional activities. As the consumers of forensic services become more sophisticated, forensic psychiatrists have an increasing need to become scientifically informed and a decreasing need to become legally informed. Traditional training in forensic psychiatry, which emphasizes clinical, legal, and institutional knowledge and experience, gives short shift to behavioral science and other technical knowledge that can enhance the validity of forensic assessments and their value to the legal system and society. Forensic psychiatrists can best respond to these changes and maximize the value of their assessments by narrowing their focus to some subset of the four branches of the discipline: criminal behavior, mental disability, forensic child psychiatry, and legal aspects of psychiatric practice. Maximal proficiency in each of these four branches requires a greater depth of knowledge and experience than was once sufficient among those who practiced in all four areas. Fellowship training programs and professional organizations should lead forensic psychiatry into the twenty-first century by organizing their efforts along these four parallel tracks.     

Insanity, methamphetamine and psychiatric expertise in New Zealand courtrooms

The use of methamphetamine in New Zealand has increased significantly over the last decade. Due to the potential of methamphetamine to induce, exacerbate and precipitate psychotic symptoms, this drug has also taken centre stage in several criminal trials considering the sanity of defendants. Highly publicised and often involving contested expert evidence, these criminal trials have illustrated the limits of using psychiatric expertise to answer legal questions. This article considers the implications of such cases in light of material from a qualitative study that aimed to generate insights into the difficulties forensic psychiatrists and their instructing lawyers face when providing expert evidence on the relationship between methamphetamine, psychosis and insanity. It reports material from 31 in-depth interviews with lawyers and forensic psychiatrists and observation of one criminal trial that considered the relationship between methamphetamine and legal insanity. The findings are correlated with the clinical and medico-legal literature on the topic and subjected to scrutiny through the lens of "sanism". The article concludes that the continued use of forensic psychiatry to meet the legal objectives of insanity, where methamphetamine is involved, has the potential to reinforce sanist attitudes and practices.     

New perspectives in the legal psychiatry of cocaine-related crimes.

The legal criteria for the insanity defense as it applies to cocaine-related crimes remains elusive because of cocaine's unique spectrum of effects on human thought and action. This paper discusses the literature relevant to cocaine and forensic psychiatry/psychology, and summarizes the results of a survey of forensic psychiatrists on the topic of drug-induced psychosis. A conceptual framework is posited for the expert witness to distinguish the separable effects of cocaine on human behavior and to clarify their relationship to criminal responsibility.