Moral wrongfulness and insanity: a New Zealand sample

Introduction: This study sought to identify the common characteristics amongst defendants found legally insane, compared to those who were psychiatrically evaluated yet convicted of their crime. Method: A retrospective review of court-ordered psychiatric court reports and legal outcomes was conducted, for all defendants referred for insanity evaluations in the largest city in New Zealand (and its surrounding rural regions) for a 7-year period. Results: The majority (60%; 37) of those referred for evaluation were found legally insane. The opinion regarding moral wrongfulness was the single factor that differentiated successful insanity defendants from those who were found guilty. Conclusions: Despite the centrality of the insanity defence to forensic psychiatry, few studies internationally consider characteristics of those found insane, particularly in comparison with those who are found guilty. Psychiatrically evaluated defendants in this sample were relatively homogenous, perhaps due to the court liaison nurse screening process.     

论法益侵害说与规范违反说之争

法益侵害说与规范违反说的争论主要在实质的犯罪概念和实质违法性领域。在实质犯罪概念领域内的争论主要是为了解释现行刑法和指导刑事立法;在实质违法性领域内争论的功能是为符合构成要件行为的正当化提供解释依据。按照中国刑法理论体系,讨论法益侵害说与规范违反说只能在实质的犯罪概念领域中进行。     

侵权构成要件的不法性功能论

违法性是大陆法系侵权法保护范围的"调节器"、法律秩序的"信号灯",并在规范层面对侵权责任形态多样化、特殊责任构成和违法性阻却有重要意义。对违法性要件之取舍,我国侵权责任立法应结合侵权法的发展趋势、价值取向和体系构成作出选择。