受审能力探析

受审能力是被告人接受法庭审判的能力。我国对受审能力的研究还处于起步阶段，立法上还有许多空白之处。本文从评定标准、提起、确认与法律后果等方面对受审能力进行了探讨。     

精神病人受审能力影响因素研究

目的探究精神病人受审能力的影响因素。方法对在四川大学华西基础医学与法医学院法医精神病学教研室进行法医精神病学鉴定的170名被鉴定人进行受审能力评定,评定研究对象的受审能力、精神症状,收集其人口学资料、犯罪学资料,采用统计描述、t检验、χ2检验、秩和检验和logistic回归分析等方法研究精神病人受审能力的影响因素。结果BPRS的思维障碍因子、激活性因子、PANSS的P分对受审能力具有显著影响;无受审能力组病理性和不明作案动机比例较高,且与有受审能力组相比差别具有统计学意义;无受审能力组言语智商低于有受审能力组,差别具有统计学意义;无受审能力组精神分裂症比例较高,差别具有统计学意义。结论BPRS的思维障碍因子、激活性因子、PANSS的P分、言语智商、精神疾病诊断、作案动机对精神病人受审能力具有一定影响。     

我国刑事诉讼中受审能力规则的功能反思与制度完善

域外国家围绕受审能力的规则建构，以“恢复能力”为导向，目的在于实现正当程序，强调不能以任何形式对无受审能力的被告人进行刑事审判，并通过衔接强制治疗程序促使被告人受审能力的恢复，最大限度实现惩罚犯罪与保障人权目的。我国刑事诉讼在重疾型缺席审判程序中引入受审能力标准，以“恢复审理”为导向展开制度设计，一方面在规范上引发法律条文之间的矛盾，另一方面在实践中导致立法目的不彰。完善我国刑事诉讼中的受审能力规则，应将其与缺席审判程序剥离，逐步转向与治疗程序的衔接。需强化对受审能力的司法判断，明确司法鉴定的启动条件及标准，通过引入专家陪审员制度补强法官在司法鉴定方面的知识短缺，进一步完善以无异议为例外的鉴定人出庭制度。     

受审能力探析

受审能力是被告人接受法庭审判的能力。我国对受审能力的研究还处于起步阶段,立法上还有许多空白之处。本文从评定标准、提起、确认与法律后果等方面对受审能力进行了探讨。     

论受审能力全程司法化审查

受审能力审查是修改后刑诉法尚未规定、在实践中又亟待明确的一个重要问题。由于专业性较强,对受审能力审查的探讨以往多集中在司法精神病学领域,主要从受审能力鉴定角度进行研究,缺少法学意义上的研究和相应的审查机制构建。本文从受审能力概念出发,根据我国刑事诉讼特点,分析了对受审能力进行全程、司法化审查的必要性,从主体范围、举证责任分担、证明标准、权利保障等角度,就建立受审能力预判、综合评定、分类处理、复查等一体化机制提出了具体建议。     

论受审能力的恢复

受审能力评定越来越引起重视的情况下,对于无受审能力者,受审能力的恢复也是一项值得大家关注的问题,受审能力恢复的培训程序包括相关精神障碍治疗、法律知识培训、综合住院治疗;而个别程序的专门培训可能是受审能力最大程度恢复的必要措施。受审能力恢复评定的标准更多的参照于经典的Bennett标准。虽然有关受审能力恢复的研究还存在一些挑战,但为我国相关受审能力恢复的研究指明了道路,提供了很好的参考依据和措施。     

论被告人受审能力的鉴定——以美国法为参考

被告人受审能力制度具有仪式化和保护性功能。美国法经过近两百年的发展,在被告人受审能力程序和评价标准上积累了丰富经验。我国被告人受审能力现有规定立法分散、层次较低;内容过于简单;将被告人的诉讼行为能力等同于受审能力。可在被告人受审能力程序和评价标准方面借鉴美国法经验,构建我国被告人受审能力制度。     

精神病被告人受审能力规则探析——基于美国刑事审判实践的思考

被告人有受审能力是美国刑事审判中正当程序原则的要求。虽然受审能力规则与精神病辩护制度有密切的联系,但是两者不能互相包容。当被告人可能患有精神病时,控辩双方和法官均可对被告人的受审能力提出质疑。这种质疑一经提出,法院就应当进行听证。听证前应当由精神病专家或心理学专家对被告人的受审能力进行评估和作出精神病学报告。如果被告人无受审能力,那么法院应裁定将被告人关押于精神病机构接受治疗。美国刑事审判中关于精神病被告人受审能力规则的实践为我国在刑事诉讼法中构建相关的规则提供了有益的经验。     

精神病人的受审能力及相关因素的定量研究

精神病人的受审能力及相关因素的定量研究华西医科大学胡泽卿，刘协和，霍克钧，李焱前言受审能力是指一个人理解他被控告的性质和定罪可能给他带来的后果，以及他能够理智地支持他的律师为他辩护的能力。受审能力检查用于评估审判时被告人的精神状态。在许多国家的司法实...     

论我国刑事被告人受审能力的制度补位

被告人受审能力理论的产生伴随着被告入主体地位的提升和被告人权益保护的加强.被告人受审能力制度有利于保障正当程序、促成实体公正、确保庭审秩序.我国当前并无关于被告人受审能力的明确规定,导致司法实践中呈现重刑事责任能力鉴定、轻受审能力鉴定的现状,使鉴定人陷入两难境地,亦不利于人权保障.我国宜在二分法的基础上,合理构建被告人受审能力的认定程序,明确认定后的处置方式.     

A validation study of the Competency Screening Test

This study was designed to assess the utility of the Competency Screening Test (CST) as a method of determining competency to stand trial. Fifty male residents of a state forensic unit were administered the CST. These residents were later interviewed by the Forensic Team who determined whether they were competent to stand trial. The CST correctly predicted the competency recommendations of the Forensic Team in 82 percent of the 50 cases. These data are consistent with previous research, and suggest that the CST should be further investigated as a preliminary screening instrument in the determination of competency to stand trial.     

Field reliability of competence to stand trial opinions: How often do evaluators agree, and what do judges decide when evaluators disagree?

Despite many studies that examine the reliability of competence to stand trial (CST) evaluations, few shed light on "field reliability," or agreement among forensic evaluators in routine practice. We reviewed 216 cases from Hawaii, which requires three separate evaluations from independent clinicians for each felony defendant referred for CST evaluation. Results revealed moderate agreement. In 71% of initial CST evaluations, all evaluators agreed about a defendant's competence or incompetence (kappa = .65). Agreement was somewhat lower (61%, kappa = .57) in re-evaluations of defendants who were originally found incompetent and sent for restoration services. We also examined the decisions judges made about a defendant's CST. When evaluators disagreed, judges tended to make decisions consistent with the majority opinion. But when judges disagreed with the majority opinion, they more often did so to find a defendant incompetent than competent, suggesting a generally conservative approach. Overall, results reveal moderate agreement among independent evaluators in routine practice. But we discuss the potential for standardized training and methodology to further improve the field reliability of CST evaluations.     

Do Defense Attorney Referrals for Competence to Stand Trial Evaluations Depend on Whether the Client Speaks English or Spanish?

Criminal defense attorneys (N = 142) responded to a survey asking them to read a vignette describing a Hispanic defendant charged with assault and rate the severity of the defendant’s mental illness and likelihood of referring him for an evaluation of competence to stand trial (CST). The vignettes varied in terms of whether the defendant spoke English or Spanish, and whether his mental illness symptoms were obvious or ambiguous. Overall, attorneys rated the Spanish-speaking defendant as less mentally ill than the English-speaking defendant, and were less likely to refer the Spanish-speaking defendant for a CST evaluation. Attorneys who perceived more logistical barriers to seeking a CST evaluation in their local communities were less likely to refer the defendant for a CST evaluation, but only when the defendant spoke Spanish. These findings suggest attorney decisions were influenced by language, although further research is needed to identify the mechanism of this influence.     

Use of a television crime-drama series to promote legal understanding in mentally ill, incompetent defendants: a pilot study

Videotaped material is used for educational purposes in many areas of medicine. In forensic facilities, programs designed to restore competency to stand trial (CST) in incompetent, mentally ill defendants have utilized videotaped courtroom proceedings as learning tools. This pilot study reviewed the progress of incompetent defendants (N = 15) who participated in a program that utilized videotaped segments of the television crime-drama "Law & Order", among other techniques, to promote CST in individuals deemed unfit to stand trial. The authors hypothesized that participation in at least one cycle of the Competency Restoration Group (CRG)'s curriculum would be associated with improvement in the areas of understanding, reasoning and appreciation. In order to assess whether the group was beneficial to the patient's treatment goal of competency restoration, patients were screened using the MacArthur Competence Assessment Tool-Criminal Adjudication (MacCAT-CA) prior to starting the group and after completing a cycle of the group's curriculum. The Wilcoxon signed ranks test was employed to analyze the results from the pre- and post-group MacCAT-CA testing. The tests yielded significant (p < 0.005) post-test differences in the hypothesized direction for each of the three subsections: Understanding, Reasoning, and Appreciation as well as a significant post test improvement in the total MacCAT-CA scores. These results suggest that a didactic program, using a popular crime drama series, can be effective in facilitating learning in competency restoration programs. Limitations of this study include its lack of a control group and small population.     

An evaluation of procedures for assessing competency to stand trial

In a field experiment involving 120 defendants at Bridgewater State Hospital in Massachusetts, the authors evaluated three instruments for assessing competency to stand trial: the Competency Screening Test (CST), Competency Assessment Instrument (CAI), and Interdisciplinary Fitness Interview (IFI). The CST (a paper-and-pencil test) was administered by a research assistant and scored by trained graduate students. Lawyers, psychologists, and social workers were recruited and trained in the use of the other instruments, then assigned as individuals (CAI) or teams (IFI) to conduct interviews and assess subjects. The performance of the project interviewers was compared against two yardsticks: (1) actual decisions reached by the regular Bridgewater staff, and (2) a consensus of two nationally respected experts who reviewed the cases and formed independent competency judgments. Both the CAI and IFI performed well under these conditions, indicating that one-time interviews by well-trained persons can lead to accurate competency decisions in the majority of cases. The authors conclude that hospitalization for competency assessment is rarely necessary.     

Quality of criminal responsibility reports submitted to the Hawaii judiciary

This paper is the third in a series of research reports on quality of forensic mental health evaluations submitted to the Hawaii judiciary. Previous studies examined quality of reports assessing competency to stand trial (CST) and post-acquittal conditional release, in felony defendants undergoing court-ordered examinations. Utilizing a 44-item quality coding instrument, this study examined quality of criminal responsibility reports in a sample of 150 forensic mental health evaluations conducted between 2006 and 2010 by court-appointed panels. Raters attained high levels of agreement in training and quality coding. Similar to the previous studies, overall quality of reports was mediocre, falling below the .80 quality criterion score for report elements, regardless of evaluator professional identification or employment status. Level of agreement between evaluators and judicial sanity determinations was “fair” using Cicchetti's (1994) standards for interpretation of intra-class correlations. Level of agreement was lower than previously published findings for CST reports and better than conditional release reports. Reasons for mediocre report quality and “fair” inter-rater agreement are discussed, including the fact that criminal responsibility evaluations are complex, retrospective in nature, and involve significant degrees of inference. In contrast to CST evaluations, assessment of criminal responsibility involves a mental state at the time of the offense evaluation. Threats to reliability in forensic reports are discussed. Suggestions for improvement of report quality are proffered, including standardization of procedures and report format and use of forensic assessment instruments.     

Domains of competency to stand trial

Attempts to improve the clinical rigor of competency to stand trial evaluations have resulted in the development of several psycholegal measures. Among the most widely used of these measures are the Competency Screening Test (CST), the Fitness Interview Test (FIT), and the Georgia Court Competency Test—Mississippi State Hospital Revision (GCCT-MSH). To examine the theoretical domains of the competency construct as assessed by these measures, a series of exploratory factor analyses were performed combining previously reported data on the FIT and GCCT-MSH with a new outpatient sample of 353 court referrals. For the CST, data from a previous sample were compared to the original validation study. Of the three measures, only the GCCT-MSH showed evidence of stable, independent factors. A comparison of the GCCT-MSH to theDusky standard suggested a need to further develop empirical measures to better represent underlying constructs related to the defendant-attorney relationship and defendant's participation in his or her defense.     

Restoration of competency to stand trial: Assessment with the Georgia Court Competency Test and the Competency Screening Test

Evaluations of the Georgia Court Competency Test—Mississippi Version Revised (GCCT-MSH) and the Competency Screening Test (CST) have supported their use with pretrial defendants in initial assessment of competency to stand trial. The present study evaluated the efficacy of these measures, as well as the Texas Competency Instrument, with an inpatient sample of defendants involved in a competency restoration program. Both measures were factor analyzed in an attempt to replicate previously identified factor structures. Neither factor structure was replicated; however, a distinct factor structure was identified for the GCCT-MSH. The relationships among sociodemographic variables, clinical variables, current symptomatology, and competency status (as measured by the GCCT-MSH) were evaluated using discriminant function analyses. The best predictors of GCCT-incompetency in this sample are a diagnosis of either a psychotic disorder or a nonpsychotic affective disorder as well as a low measured IQ. Current symptomatology, as measured by the SCL-90-R, was not an effective predictor of competency status.