【摘要】 目的了解刑事法官对毒品所致精神障碍者刑事责任能力(本文特指自愿吸毒,危害行为发生当时已陷入辨认或控制能力丧失情形)认定意见与处置建议。方法使用自编毒品所致精神障碍者责任能力评定调查表,选择在国家法官学院刑事证据专题研修班学习的刑事审判法官作为调查对象,通过信访调查、自愿填报的方式收集调查表。结果问卷一获得有效问卷87份,在《精神障碍者刑事责任能力评定指南》(下称《指南》)颁布前,30名法官曾审理过自愿吸毒所致精神障碍者所涉刑事案件,案件中主要鉴定意见为完全、限定和无责任能力的比例为20∶9∶1,且法官最终均采信了鉴定意见;在《指南》颁布后,有31名法官曾审理过此类案件,主要鉴定意见为完全、限定、无责任能力和不予评定的比例为16∶4∶5∶6,法官最终审判认定完全、限定和无责任能力的比例为21∶8∶2。对4类特殊情形案例如,受胁迫或误吸毒品情形下,完全、限定和无责任能力的比例约为2∶3∶3;医源性摄入毒品情形下,完全、限定和无责任能力的比例约为1∶2∶3;脱毒期内因毒品的持续作用情形下,完全、限定和无责任能力的比例约为10∶9∶1;行为能力受限者自愿吸毒情形下,完全、限定和无责任能力的比例约为2∶7∶2。问卷二获得有效问卷43份,法官对毒品所致精神障碍者案件的责任能力认定意见中完全、限定和无责任能力的比例为31∶11∶1,对现行情况最可行的解决对策由司法鉴定行业制定相关标准、由立法层面制定相关法律条款和根据案件情况自由裁定的比例为15∶22∶6。结论在接受本调查的法官所审理案件中,多数鉴定人在相关评定时并未严格按照《指南》规定执行。法官对自愿吸毒所致精神障碍者应当负刑事责任能力的观点较为一致,多数倾向于完全责任能力,但仍存在一定分歧。相较鉴定人,法官对非自愿吸毒所致精神障碍者的责任能力认定更为严厉。绝大部分法官认为在现行情况下应由司法鉴定行业制定标准或立法层面制定法律来解决评定争议。更多还原

【Abstract】 Objective To understand the penal judge’s disposal opinions towards the criminal responsibility of drug-induced mental disorders(hereby and after refer to voluntary drug users. The objects have already lost identification or control ability when the harm behavior occurs). Method Using the self-made questionnaire and choosing the penal judge in the National Judges College of Criminal Evidence Seminar as investigation objects, the questionnaires were collected through the complaint investigation and voluntary reporting. Results The questionnaire one has 87 valid responses. Before the"Mental Disorders of Criminal Responsibility Ability Assessment Guide" was promulgated, 30 trial judges had been involved in drug-induced mental disorders criminal cases. Among the expert opinions, the proportion of full, limited and none responsibility was 20 ∶ 9 ∶ 1, and the judges ultimately adopted the expert opinions. After the "Guide" was promulgated,31 judges have heard over such cases. The proportion of full, limited, none responsibility and not suitable for assessment opinions was 16 ∶ 4 ∶ 5 ∶ 6. The proportion of ruled full, limited and none responsibility was 21 ∶ 8 ∶ 2. Under 4 kinds of special circumstances, such as drug use by coercion or mistake, the proportion of full, limited and none responsibility was2 ∶ 3 ∶ 3. Under the circumstance of iatrogenic intake of drugs, the ratio was 1 ∶ 2 ∶ 3. During the rehabilitation, when kept being affected by the drugs, the ratio was 10 ∶ 9 ∶ 1. For those whose capacity was limited but voluntary to use drugs, the ratio was2 ∶ 7 ∶ 2. There were 43 valid responses for questionnaire two. The proportion of ruled full, limited and none responsibility was 31 ∶ 11 ∶ 1. The ratio of the most feasible solutions to the current situation based on the judicial appraisal standards, the relevant legal provisions and the discretion was 15 ∶ 22 ∶ 6. Conclusions Currently, most judicial experts don’t practice in strict accordance with the "Guide ". Judges tend to rule full criminal responsibility of drug induced mental disorders, but there are still some differences. The majority of the judges agreed that the involuntary drug induced mental disorders should be reduced or exempted from punishment. The majority of the judges found that under the present circumstances, the disputes should be resolved by setting forensic standards or legislation.更多还原