精神失常抗辩及其刑事证明—以美国法为视角

发布时间：2018-03-11 07:46

本文选题：精神失常抗辩　切入点：心智健全推定　出处：《证据科学》2014年04期 　论文类型：期刊论文

【摘要】：心智健全推定卸除了控方对被告人心智健全的证明责任,将争点形成责任交由辩方承担。而精神失常在美国刑事法中属于积极抗辩事由,根据联邦和多数州的司法实践,由辩方承担提出初步的举证责任,并承担"清晰、信服"程度的说服责任。相较之下,我国目前刑事实体法的建构与刑事证明之间没有明确的衔接,以至于刑事证明的功能无法有效实现。司法精神病鉴定是目前查实被告人是否精神失常的主要手段,但启动权主要其中在公安司法机关手中,辩方权利受到较大限制,而对鉴定人以及鉴定证据亦缺乏体系性的证据审用规则。司法精神病鉴定应当纳入刑事证明的轨道,辩方如欲推翻心智健全推定,应提出相应证据,继而说服责任的分配要区分辩方证明主张:该鉴定意见是对控方对犯罪主观方面要素证明的反驳,还是主张责任阻却。前者由控方证明到排除合理怀疑的程度,而后者则由辩方证明到清晰、信服的程度。在此证明原理的基础上,鉴定人有义务出庭对鉴定意见进行口头陈述或展示,并接受对造的质证。鉴定意见的证据能力则由法庭依法判断,其证明力则由法庭自由评价。
[Abstract]:The presumption of mental integrity removes the burden of proof of the mental integrity of the accused and places the responsibility for the formation of points of contention on the defence. Whereas mental disorders are a positive defence in United States criminal law, according to the judicial practice of the Federation and most states, The defense bears the initial burden of proof, and bears the burden of persuasion to the extent of "clarity and conviction". In contrast, there is no clear link between the construction of criminal substantive law and the proof of criminal evidence in our country at present. So that the function of criminal proof can not be effectively realized. Forensic psychiatric identification is the main means to ascertain whether the defendant is mentally disturbed, but the right to start is mainly in the hands of the public security judicial organ, and the defense right is greatly restricted. The forensic psychiatric examination should be included in the track of criminal proof. If the defense wants to overturn the presumption of mental integrity, it should present the corresponding evidence. Then the distribution of the burden of persuasion should distinguish between the argument of the defense: whether the opinion refutes the prosecution's proof of the subjective elements of the crime, or whether the burden of persuasion is obstructed, the former from proof by the prosecution to the degree of beyond reasonable doubt. On the basis of the principle of proof, the expert is obliged to present an oral presentation or presentation of the opinion. The evidence capacity of the appraisal opinion shall be judged by the court according to law, and the power of proof shall be evaluated freely by the court.
【作者单位】：清华大学法学院;
【分类号】：D925.2;D971.2

【参考文献】