被鉴定为待分类的精神病性障碍者是否具有刑事责任能力——以一起盗窃案为视角

待分类的精神病性障碍是一种精神病.被鉴定为待分类的精神病性障碍者,受所患疾病的影响,案发时其辨认能力和控制能力严重受损,应评定为无刑事责任能力.     

服刑能力司法精神鉴定研究

为探索服刑能力鉴定的相关因素 ,对102例服刑能力评定的案例进行分析研究 ,以自制的“服刑环境适应调查表”进行调查比较。结果发现精神病性障碍及以往有精神异常史者无服刑能力比率较高 ,且服刑环境适应能力差     

刑事责任能力鉴定的资料来源及其影响因素分析

为明确刑事责任能力鉴定中的举证责任和影响刑事责任能力的因素,采用分层抽样和SPSS软件包对281例刑事责任能力鉴定的资料进行统计分析。鉴定依据的资料主要来自公安局（82．2％）,被鉴定人（98．22％）和亲属、同事、邻居（98．58％）。多元回归分析显示标准回归系数为：精神病性症状0．2878,操作智商0．2149,诱发事件0．2026,作案动机0．1873,言语智商0．1540。分权证明：我省刑事责任能力鉴定的举证责任是由多方共同承担。对刑事责任能力鉴定影响最大的是精神病性症状,其次是操作智商、诱发事件,再次是作案动机和言语智商。     

死者生前司法精神病鉴定22例分析

目的探讨开展司法精神病生前鉴定过程中应当注意的问题。方法回顾性分析首都医科大学附属北京安定医院精神疾病司法鉴定科自1982年8月1日起至2016年7月31日止,22例司法精神病生前鉴定的过程和结论。分析指标主要包括:(1)实施鉴定的时间;(2)委托鉴定的事项;(3)委托人提供的鉴定材料;(4)鉴定结论。结果(1)1982年8月1日至1999年7月31日鉴定7例,1999年8月1日至2016年7月31日鉴定15例。(2)1982年8月1日至1999年7月31日间主要鉴定事项为6例(85.7%,6/7)精神状态及刑事责任能力和1例(14.3%,1/7)精神状态及性自我防卫能力,1999年8月1日至2016年7月31日间15例鉴定事项全部为精神状态及民事行为能力。(3)委托人提供的鉴定材料包括:既往鉴定意见、描述精神状态的病历、有效的证人证言和/或羁押期间表现、公安机关问讯纪录、视听资料。(4)大部分被鉴定人能够被鉴定出精神疾病临床诊断并判断法律能力,个别鉴定不能得出结论。结论生前鉴定数量少、难度大;针对民事行为能力的生前鉴定有明显增加的趋势;重点应保证鉴定资料的真实性、完整性、充分性和合法性;"不能得出结论"也是一种鉴定结论,建议采用三分法进行生前鉴定的民事行为能力评定。     

司法精神病鉴定启动机制的完善

刑事责任能力是承担刑事责任的必要条件之一。某些案件中,行为人是否具备刑事责任能力需要精神病鉴定结论的支持。现就我国现行的司法精神病鉴定的程序启动机制,现行启动机制存在何种弊端,以及如何完善司法精神病鉴定启动机制展开探讨。一、我国现行司法精神病鉴定启动机制法官的精神病司法鉴定启动权。《刑事诉讼法》第158条第2款规定:"人民法院调查核实证据,可以进行     

劳动争议案件司法精神病鉴定研究

目的探讨劳动争议案件的司法精神病鉴定的现状及发展趋势。方法回顾性分析1990～2001年156例劳动争议案件司法精神病鉴定中的被鉴定人一般资料、案由、委托方、鉴定时机、病史、鉴定结论等情况。结果44.2%的被鉴定人处于30～39岁,委托方多为法院(68.6%),大多数案件由家属和法院申请鉴定;终(中)止合同的案件占75.7%,劳动报酬的案件大幅度上升;争议起始至申请鉴定平均相距21.9个月,12个月以内的占69.2%;鉴定诊断精神分裂症82例(51.3%),无精神病16例(10.2%),结论与既往临床诊断一致的占91.2%;评定为有、限制、无行为能力的比例分别为23.7、23.1和52.6%。结论近年来劳动争议案件在数量、案由、鉴定时机等方面发生较大变化,有关民事行为能力的评定应引起司法精神病学界关注。     

具有凶杀行为的抑郁症与精神分裂症患者的作案特征对比

目的探讨抑郁症与精神分裂症患者凶杀行为司法精神病学鉴定的作案特征。方法将具有凶杀行为的抑郁症(抑郁发作)患者为研究组,共40例;随机抽取具有凶杀行为的精神分裂症患者为对照组,共50例。自制调查表收集两组的一般人口学资料、作案特征等相关数据,并进行比较。结果研究组和对照组的年龄、接受教育时间、职业差异均无统计学意义(P0.05)。与对照组相比,研究组被害对象多为子女和父母,在杀人后多有自杀行为(70%),凶杀原因以扩大性和间接性自杀为主,以往多有自杀未遂(85%)。研究组以限制刑事责任能力者为主(70%),对照组以无刑事责任能力者为主(56%)。除案发地点外,其他作案特征两组比较差异均有统计学意义(P0.05)。结论抑郁症与精神分裂症患者凶杀行为司法精神病鉴定的作案特征存在不同,精神病司法鉴定中应需在鉴别诊断时加以考虑。     

刑事责任能力鉴定启动难的成因分析

纵观社会各界关于刑事责任能力鉴定启动难的成因分析,我们可以发现其存在着明显的基本归因错误。事实上,我国司法实践中存在的刑事责任能力鉴定的“泛精神病”、“泛无（或限制）刑事责任能力”倾向与相关抑制措施的缺失相结合,导致的容易放纵犯罪的社会现实状况,也是“手握”刑事责任能力鉴定启动权的各个司法机关不愿启动刑事责任能力鉴定的重要原因之一。     

呼出气中丁烷测定方法及应用的研究

目的建立一种精神病人呼出气中丁烷的检测方法,用以诊断精神病患者。方法对70例精神病人呼出气中丁烷进行收集和测量,并同时与52例正常人进行对照。结果精神病患者呼出气中丁烷含量远远高出正常人。结论该方法为精神病患者的诊断和司法精神病的鉴定及刑事责任能力的鉴别认定提供了一种安全、简便、不易被人为因素干扰的生化指标和依据。     

1369例司法精神病学鉴定诊断与临床诊断的一致性分析

目的探讨进行司法精神病学鉴定的精神障碍患者的鉴定诊断与鉴定前临床诊断的一致性。方法利用自编调查资料整理表回顾性收集济宁医学院第二附属医院司法鉴定所2014—2017年进行刑事责任能力鉴定的1 369例被鉴定人的鉴定资料,将鉴定意见的精神障碍诊断结果和既往临床诊断进行比较分析。结果 1 369例被鉴定人中,鉴定诊断有精神障碍者964例(70.4%),无精神障碍者405例(29.6%)。前者有临床诊断者为63.3%(610例),高于后者的43.2%(175例,P0.05)。鉴定诊断的各类精神障碍中,癔症、应激、神经症类患者有临床诊断的比例最高(86.7%),而精神发育迟滞患者有临床诊断的比例最低(9.6%)。鉴定诊断与临床诊断总体一致率最高为精神分裂症类(98.4%),人格与行为障碍(33.3%)最低。有精神障碍组临床诊断与鉴定诊断的总体一致率为84.1%,Kappa值为0.759。相比门诊诊断,住院诊断和鉴定诊断的一致率(85.9%)更高(P0.05)。结论在能提供既往临床诊疗资料的司法精神病学鉴定中,被鉴定诊断为有精神障碍者,其鉴定诊断与临床诊断的一致性较高,临床诊断(尤其是住院诊断)对司法精神病学鉴定有较好的参考价值。     

Psychiatric and neurological characteristics of murder defendants referred for pretrial evaluation

After literature review, this paper presents the largest study to date (n = 270) of psychiatric and neurological characteristics of accused murderers in the United States. This retrospective record review of pretrial detainees undergoing competency to stand trial and criminal responsibility evaluations examined demographic characteristics, psychiatric diagnosis, substance use patterns, Intelligence Quotient (IQ), and results of electroencephalogram (EEG), neuroimaging (MRI or CT) and neurological examination. Substance use and mood/adjustment disorders were common. Neuroimaging was abnormal in 18% of subjects and was associated with lower Performance IQ. EEG and neurological exam findings were not associated with measured cognitive impairment. While 16% of subjects had a FS IQ < 70, only 6% were diagnosed with mental retardation. Subjects with a psychotic disorder (p = 0.001) or an anxiety disorder (p = 0.005) were more likely to use a knife than other subjects in the study. Violence risk assessment in these patients must not only involve inquiry about firearm availability.     

证明责任与强制鉴定：“精神病”的鉴定问题研究

精神病的刑事责任问题在英美法国家经历由非此即彼的有无向中间环节的妥协,诞生了限制刑事责任;同时精神病证明责任的分配也由控方绝对责任向相对责任缓冲,并逐渐演变为辩方承担证明责任和控方承担说服责任配置方式。我国应当在借鉴精神病证明责任合理分配的基础上,构建强制鉴定制度,以此来促进精神病证明责任的合理配置流向,保证精神病证明责任的程序正当。     

Filicide, attempted filicide, and psychotic disorders

The objective of the study was to describe and discuss the cases of two women who faced criminal charges, one for attempting to murder her three children and the other for killing her 1-year-old boy. After a forensic psychiatric assessment of their level of criminal responsibility, these patients were considered not guilty by reason of insanity and were committed to forensic mental hospitals. These two patients received a diagnosis of paranoid schizophrenia, according to the DSM-IV-TR criteria. In both cases, psychotic symptoms were present before the manifestation of violent behavior, in the form of persecutory delusions, auditory hallucinations, and pathological impulsivity. The investigation into cases of filicide may contribute powerfully to expand our understanding of motivational factors underlying this phenomenon and enhance the odds for effective prevention.     

“精神病”与刑事责任能力的判断

在我国精神医学中,＂精神病＂与＂精神疾病＂及＂精神障碍＂的含义是不同的。从精神障碍的特点以及刑事责任能力的主要内容来看,刑法中的＂精神病＂应作广义理解。为避免不必要的争议,用＂精神障碍＂取代刑法中的＂精神病＂更为合理。无论依据国际标准还是国内标准,人格障碍都属于医学上的精神疾病,可以成为判断刑事责任能力的医学要件,但是这并不必然导致无刑事责任能力的判断结果。＂有病无罪论＂实际上混淆了精神疾病与刑事责任能力的关系。     

Reduced punishment in Israel in the case of murder: bridging the medico-legal gap

The psychiatrist's assessment of criminal responsibility of an accused in court for an act of crime has always been a matter of great difficulty. In 1997, clause 300a was incorporated into the Penal Code of Israel, thereby permitting a more lenient punishment for murder than mandatory life imprisonment. The clause includes the definition of what is meant by "severe mental disorder" and "significantly restricted capacity" by the defendant to understand the criminal nature of his or her act and to refrain from committing it. Usage of the concepts "disorder" and "significantly restricted capacity" in addressing the issue of diminished responsibility of the mentally ill is new to the Israeli legal code. The emergence and evolvement of the above concepts are presented through a historical review of the Israeli encoded law concerning mental illness, analyzed from a psychiatric perspective.     

人格责任论对于刑事司法精神病鉴定的应用价值

目的探讨人格责任论和动机理论相结合的方法在精神障碍患者刑事责任能力鉴定中的价值。方法回顾性分析我机构2013年及2014年实施鉴定的101例精神障碍患者的刑事责任能力,分析指标包括:精神症状对人格基本特征的反映;作案动机;被鉴定人对违法行为的评价;刑事责任能力。结果不同的症状反映了人格整体性、一致性和特殊性的异常;当症状不同时,患者实施违法行为的动机也有现实和非现实的差异;人格整体性受损者不能正常和正确地评价违法行为,几乎全部人格一致性、特殊性受影响者能认识到行为的违法性;人格的完整性和一致性受影响者刑事责任能力不完全;人格特殊性受影响者为完全刑事责任能力。结论人格责任论与动机理论相结合应用于精神障碍患者的刑事责任能力鉴定,有实用的临床意义。以行为人作为行动者的同一性进行界定,辨别患者对行为是"不能控制"还是"不予控制",值得在精神病司法鉴定工作中推广应用。     

Homicidal Ideation and Forensic Psychopathology: Evidence From the 2016 Nationwide Emergency Department Sample (NEDS)

Homicide is the most serious and costly criminal offense and better forensic and criminological understanding of homicidal ideation as a potential psychobehavioral precursor to homicidal conduct is critical. Using data from the 2016 Nationwide Emergency Department Sample (NEDS) from the Healthcare Cost and Utilization Project (HCUP) distributed by the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ), we found 64,910 cases of homicidal ideation among a sample of 25.6 + million—a prevalence of 0.25%. Numerous conditions conferred increased substantially the likelihood of homicidal ideation including antisocial personality disorder (2406%), schizoaffective disorder (1821%), borderline personality disorder (1557%), paranoid personality disorder (1,504%), schizophrenia (1,143%), obsessive–compulsive personality disorder (921%), brief psychotic disorder (771%), unspecified psychosis (737%), avoidant personality disorder (596%), and schizoid personality disorder (571%), delusional disorder (546%), and other psychotic disorder (504%). Homicidal ideation is comorbid with serious psychiatric and behavioral problems and has important implications for offender typologies and homicidality.     

Implicit theories of criminal responsibility

Three questions relevant to insanity decisions were examined: (a) What informational cues are weighed most heavily in the attribution of criminal responsibility? (b) How do verdict forms influence these attributions? And (c) How do individuals' beliefs about insanity and responsibility influence decision making? Undergraduate subjects (n=181) responded to vignettes portraying an act by a mentally disordered defendant. Psychiatric jargon was avoided, so that attributions were not a function of diagnostic terminology. It was found that, under the traditional scheme of not guilty by reason of insanity (NGRI) vs. guilty, level of mental disorder (schizophrenia vs. personality disorder) was the primary determinant of insanity decisions. Also, insanity judgments were more likely to be made for acts performed without planful intentionality. Under the alternative scheme of NGRI vs. guilty but mentally ill (GBMI) vs. guilty, mental disorder still controlled NGRI verdicts; a bizarre act increased the likelihood of a GBMI over a guilty verdict; and the GBMI verdict option reduced markedly the proportion of psychotic defendants found NGRI and the proportion of personality disordered defendants found guilty. There were no significant differences between diagnostic groups in the likelihood of being found GBMI. Most subjects preferred to utilize the GBMI option as a compromise verdict even in the face of very severe mental illness. Attitudinal data revealed considerable variation in agreement with the classic moral logic of the insanity defense and accounted for a significant amount of the variance in insanity decisions. The implications for both social policy and future research are discussed.     

105例凶杀案责任能力评定分析

目的探讨鉴定医生评定凶杀案例责任能力时的主要依据及影响因素。方法对总计105例凶杀案的精神病司法鉴定案例进行回顾性分析。结果无责任能力者41例(39.0%);限定责任能力者28例(26.7%);完全责任能力者36例(34.3%);与刑事责任能力的评定密切相关的因素有:凶杀行为是否由精神病理因素引起(Gamma=0.906,P=0.000),临床诊断是否为重性精神病(Gamma=0.761,P=0.000),被害人是否为家人亲属(Gamma=0.412,P=0.000)。结论从技术层面看,鉴定医生评价责任能力考虑的三个主要方面按重要性依次是:凶杀行为是否由精神病理因素引起,被鉴定人是否患有重性精神病,被害对象是否为家人亲属。