法医学杂志
法醫學雜誌
법의학잡지
JOURNAL OF FORENSIC MEDICINE
2014年
6期
431-433
,共3页
张盛宇%赵海%蔡伟雄%汤涛%管唯
張盛宇%趙海%蔡偉雄%湯濤%管唯
장성우%조해%채위웅%탕도%관유
司法精神病学%毒品所致精神障碍%刑事责任能力
司法精神病學%毒品所緻精神障礙%刑事責任能力
사법정신병학%독품소치정신장애%형사책임능력
forensic psychiatry%drug-induced m ental disorders%crim inal responsibility
目的:了解毒品所致精神障碍者刑事责任能力评定现状及鉴定人对此类案件的观点。方法自编《毒品所致精神障碍者责任能力评定调查表》,选择上海市法医精神病鉴定机构的鉴定人为调查对象,通过信访方式收集调查表。结果大部分鉴定人知晓《精神障碍者刑事责任能力评定指南》(简称《指南》)对毒品所致精神障碍者刑事责任能力评定做出了“不宜评定”的特别规定。《指南》颁布前后,所有的鉴定人均未做出过无刑事责任能力的评定;《指南》颁布后,部分鉴定人仍做出完全或限定刑事责任能力的评定。对作案与症状无关、明知吸毒可致精神错乱却放纵吸毒的案例,鉴定人分歧较小。对作案与症状相关、辨控能力丧失的案例,鉴定人分歧较明显。为消除此类案件刑事责任能力评定的分歧,完善立法认同率最高。结论目前在此类案件鉴定实践中,大部分鉴定人并未严格按照《指南》规定执行,刑事责任能力评定仍存在明显分歧。
目的:瞭解毒品所緻精神障礙者刑事責任能力評定現狀及鑒定人對此類案件的觀點。方法自編《毒品所緻精神障礙者責任能力評定調查錶》,選擇上海市法醫精神病鑒定機構的鑒定人為調查對象,通過信訪方式收集調查錶。結果大部分鑒定人知曉《精神障礙者刑事責任能力評定指南》(簡稱《指南》)對毒品所緻精神障礙者刑事責任能力評定做齣瞭“不宜評定”的特彆規定。《指南》頒佈前後,所有的鑒定人均未做齣過無刑事責任能力的評定;《指南》頒佈後,部分鑒定人仍做齣完全或限定刑事責任能力的評定。對作案與癥狀無關、明知吸毒可緻精神錯亂卻放縱吸毒的案例,鑒定人分歧較小。對作案與癥狀相關、辨控能力喪失的案例,鑒定人分歧較明顯。為消除此類案件刑事責任能力評定的分歧,完善立法認同率最高。結論目前在此類案件鑒定實踐中,大部分鑒定人併未嚴格按照《指南》規定執行,刑事責任能力評定仍存在明顯分歧。
목적:료해독품소치정신장애자형사책임능력평정현상급감정인대차류안건적관점。방법자편《독품소치정신장애자책임능력평정조사표》,선택상해시법의정신병감정궤구적감정인위조사대상,통과신방방식수집조사표。결과대부분감정인지효《정신장애자형사책임능력평정지남》(간칭《지남》)대독품소치정신장애자형사책임능력평정주출료“불의평정”적특별규정。《지남》반포전후,소유적감정인균미주출과무형사책임능력적평정;《지남》반포후,부분감정인잉주출완전혹한정형사책임능력적평정。대작안여증상무관、명지흡독가치정신착란각방종흡독적안례,감정인분기교소。대작안여증상상관、변공능력상실적안례,감정인분기교명현。위소제차류안건형사책임능력평정적분기,완선입법인동솔최고。결론목전재차류안건감정실천중,대부분감정인병미엄격안조《지남》규정집행,형사책임능력평정잉존재명현분기。
Objective T o understand the assessm ent on the criminal responsibility of drug-induced m ental disorders and judicial experts’ opinions. Methods T he judicial experts from institutes of forensic psychi-atry in Shanghai were selected. T hey were asked to finish a self-m ade questionnaire of assessm ent on the criminal responsibility of drug-induced m ental disorders by letters and visits. Results Most of experts knewthe special regulation,“not suitable for evaluation” towards the criminal responsibility of drug-in-duced m ental disorders of the guideline prom ulgated by Ministry of Justice. B efore and after the guide-line was issued, no expert m ade a no-responsibility opinion in such cases. After the guideline was issued, som e experts m ade a full-responsibility or lim ited-responsibility opinion in such cases. T here was a little disagreem ent am ong the experts in the case that the crime was unrelated with m ental sym ptom s or the criminals used drugs even though he knewit could induced insanity. B ut there were still m any obvious disagreem ents am ong experts in the case that crime was related to such sym ptom s and person was no ability to debate. Most experts agreed to settle the disagreem ents with im proved legislative perfection. Conclusion Most experts are not strictly com plying with the assessm ent guidelines during their practice, and there is still an obvious disagreem ent towards the criminal responsibility of drug-induced m ental disorders.