论文部分内容阅读
目的比较辨认和控制能力(以下简称“辨控能力”)与责任能力司法精神鉴定的差异。方法对2001年1月—2006年10月(第一时段)实施责任能力与2006年11月—2010年10月(第二时段)在刑事案件中实施辨控能力的评定结果进行比较。回访调查上述被鉴定人的法庭判决及鉴定意见的采信情况。调查公、检、法、司等法学界人士对司法精神鉴定相关问题的观点。结果两个时段的鉴定案件类型大致相仿,差异无统计学意义(P>0.05);但两个时段作出的精神障碍诊断类型,差异有统计学意义(P<0.05)。第二时段鉴定为正常范围辨控能力和部分辨控能力的人数比例较第一时段多,而完全丧失辨控能力的人数比例较第一时段少(P<0.05)。70.5%的法学界人士认为司法精神鉴定“评定辨控能力”有别于“评定刑事责任能力”。94.9%认为“作出精神病症对行为人作案行为的影响及其影响程度”或“作出辨控能力”的司法精神鉴定是符合要求的规范行为。结论评定辨控能力比评定责任能力更符合当前法学要求和自身学科的行为规范。
Objective To compare the differences between the identification and control ability (hereinafter referred to as “control ability”) and the judicial spirit identification of responsibility. Methods The comparison of the assessment results of the ability to implement the control in the criminal cases from January 2001 to October 2006 (the first period) and from November 2006 to October 2010 (second period) were compared. Revisit to investigate the appraisers of the court judgments and appraisal opinions of the letter of acceptance. Investigate public opinion, prosecution, law, and other legal profession on judicial spirit appraisal related issues. Results The types of appraisal cases in two periods were similar and the difference was not statistically significant (P> 0.05). However, the diagnostic types of mental disorders in two periods were statistically different (P <0.05). The second period was identified as the normal range of control ability and part of the ability to control the number of people than the first period, while the total loss of control ability of the number of people than the first period less (P <0.05). 70.5% of legal professionals believe that the judicial spirit of appraisal “assessing the ability of control ” is different from “assessing criminal responsibility ”. 94.9% considered that “the judicial spirit appraisal of” the effect of making mental illness on the perpetrator’s crime and its influence degree “or” making the ability of making judgment "is the normative act that meets the requirements. Conclusion It is more in line with the current legal requirements and the code of conduct of their own disciplines to assess the ability of controlling and controlling than to assess the responsibility.