【作者】 杨西；

【导师】 王军明；

【作者基本信息】 吉林大学 ， 法律硕士（专业学位）， 2017， 硕士

【摘要】 司法实践中,关于精神病人刑事责任能力的认定中出现的分歧主要集中在对精神病概念界定的标准不同、法官与精神病鉴定专家之间的责任分工不同等方面。精神病人的概念在法学和精神病学上有着不同的界定标准,这种不同主要体现在精神病医学上对精神病概念的界定的出发点和目的是为了更好地区分不同精神病、精神病与其他相近疾病之间的不同特征,以方便医务从业者对于精神病的诊断和治疗,而刑法学上对精神病的界定的目的主要是为了刑法实践中法官更好地判断精神病人刑事责任能力的有无和大小。两种不同学科对精神病概念界定的不同出发点和目的决定了在刑法学研究和司法实践中可以借鉴医学上对精神病的概念界定,但决不能照搬医学上精神病概念。精神病刑事责任认定的司法实践中存在的主要困境有三个方面。第一,精神病鉴定专家在司法案件的权力来源问题,即精神病鉴定专家在司法案件中的主体正当性问题;第二,精神病鉴定意见的两面性中的非科学性和主观性给司法裁判者所带来的误判风险,即精神病鉴定意见的非唯一性;第三,在精神病人案件的司法裁定中,精神病鉴定专家与法官的意见出现冲突的问题,即在司法裁定中,当法官根据法学知识作出的结论和精神病鉴定专家的鉴定结论产生冲突时应如何取舍的问题。这些司法实践中遇到的困境的解决需要借鉴国外的有益经验,以此解决我国司法实践中遇到的困境,这便构成了本文的第三部分的写作原因。在对精神病人刑事责任认定的研究中,英国和美国作为法律体系发展十分齐全的两个国家,其在司法实践中积累了丰富的理论和实践经验,在精神病人刑事责任的认定中创造性的提出了麦克劳顿规则、不可抗拒冲动规则、德赫姆规则、模范刑法典规则、犯罪综合控制法规则等司法规则,这些司法规则的产生不仅昭示了司法人员在工作实践中非凡的智慧和创造力,更是为其他各国处理精神病人的刑事案件提供了重要的参考。在借鉴他国实践经验的基础上,我们最终需要落实到我国精神病人刑事责任认定的实践中,这是本文第四部分写作的重点。我国精神病人的刑事责任认定发展除了借鉴他国实践经验,丰富我国精神病人刑事责任认定的实践理论,更要做好相应的制度支持的保障工作,而这些保障制度主要包括精神病人监管制度、被害人国家补偿制度、精神病人的救治制度三项基本制度。更多还原

【Abstract】 In judicial practice,the differences in the determination of the criminal capacity of mental patients mainly focus on the different definitions of the concept of mental illness,the division of responsibilities between the judge and the psychiatrist,and so on.The concept of mental patients in law and psychiatry has a different standard of definitions;this difference is mainly reflected in the psychiatry and criminal law on the definition of the concept of mental illness.The starting point and purpose of the definition of psychiatric concept in psychiatry is to better distinguish different characters of different mental illness and different characters of psychosis and other similar diseases to facilitate the medical practitioners for the diagnosis and treatment of mental illness,but the purpose of the definition of psychosis in criminal law is mainly for the judge in the practice of criminal law to better determine whether the mental patients have the criminal capacity and the size of criminal capacity.The different starting points and objectives defined by the two different disciplines on the concept of psychosis determine that the concept of psychosis of medical can be used for reference in the criminal law research and judicial practice,but the concept of psychiatry cannot be copied.There are three main problems in the judicial practice of criminal capacity.The first is the question of the source of power in legal cases of a psychiatric expert,which is the subjective legitimacy of a psychiatric expert in judicial cases;Secondly,the non-scientific and subjectivity in two sides of the psychiatric evaluation bring the misjudgment risk to judicial adjudicators.Namely psychiatric appraisal opinions are non-unique.Thirdly,in the judicial verdict cases about mental patients,the problem is the opinion conflict between psychiatric experts and judges,which is the trade-off problem when decisions made by judge based on law knowledge and identification results made by psychiatric experts are conflicting.The difficulties encountered in judicial practice need to learn the beneficial experience from foreign countries.This is the reason that constitutes the third part of the writing.In the study of mental patients identification of criminal responsibility,the development of the legal system in Britain and America has been very complete.They accumulate abundant theoretical and practical experience and creatively put forward many judicial rules,such as McLaughton Rule,Irresistible Impulse Rule,Durham Rule,Model Criminal Code,Comprehensive Crime Control Rules,whose existence not only demonstrates the wisdom and creativity of judicial official in working practice,but also provides important reference to solve mental patients’ criminal cases for other counties.On the base of reference practical experience of other countries,we should implement it into mental patients identification of criminal responsibility practice,which is the focus of the fourth part.The development about mental patients identification of criminal responsibility in our country,besides reference practical experience from other countries and enrich our country mental patients identification of criminal responsibility practical theories,corresponding institutional support security working should be done better,which includes three basic systems: Mental patient supervision system,the compensation system of the victim state and the mental patient treatment system.更多还原