论刑事强制医疗程序的适用条件及其审查判断

发布时间：2018-05-04 19:14

本文选题：强制医疗 + 精神障碍者　；参考：《西南政法大学》2014年硕士论文

【摘要】：除引言外，，本文分为三部分。第一部分是对刑事强制医疗程序适用条件的规范分析。关于主体要件，笔者主张对“精神障碍”一词作广义理解；法官拥有刑事责任能力的评定权，指出司法人员对刑事责任能力评定的三大误区：由鉴定人认定即可、“有病一定无罪”、对辨认控制能力理解停留在概念层面。关于行为要件，笔者主张将单纯侵财的犯罪排除在外；分析被申请人暴力行为的社会危害性时应综合考量犯罪手段、犯罪地点、可预期的危害程度、犯罪次数和频率，犯罪未遂者亦可纳入刑事强制医疗程序；刑事强制医疗程序可以溯及既往，但时间上溯不宜太早，并应加强对监护意愿、监护条件、病情发展、后续肇事情况的审查。关于必要性要件，笔者主张不能由本次犯罪严重性和精神疾病就直接推定被申请人具有社会危险性；社会危险性应当具有严重性（包括严重的再犯行为和极高的再犯危险性）、即时性，其他方法足以消除被申请人危险性的，就不必强制入院治疗；在此分析上，笔者列举了6项有继续危害社会可能的情形和3项无继续危害社会可能的情形。第二部分是对刑事强制医疗程序适用条件的审查判断。关于主体要件，笔者认为司法人员应当树立“无病推定”理念。审查司法精神病鉴定意见时，应当从形式审查和实质审查入手。形式审查应着重审查鉴定人专业能力、应否回避、鉴定所依据的检材、鉴定方法和分析过程。实质审查应先结合其他证据综合审查排除“装精神病”“花钱买鉴定”的可能，然后结合疾病和案情从精神症状及其严重程度与所实施犯罪行为之间是否存在因果关系，行为人能否认知行为内容、后果以及是否知道行为的对错，控制能力减弱与否及其程度三个方面来评定被申请人的刑事责任能力。关于行为要件，笔者主张对应当达到排除合理怀疑的证明标准，被申请人供述具有证据资格，供述基本可信。但审查时仍应注意审查供述与其智力、记忆和表达能力是否相适应；在供述与其他证据存在矛盾和不一致时，找到矛盾原因；在直接证据较少的案件中，引入精神医学专家帮助司法人员审查被申请人供述。关于必要性要件，笔者主张危险性评估可以检验报告的形式引入精神医学专家意见，司法人员应在综合各因素基础上作出自己的判断并给出理由。对危险性评估的证明标准应达到“清楚和有说服力的证明标准”。在评估被申请人社会危险性时，司法人员应当会见被申请人、咨询鉴定人、主治医生、询问被申请人法定代理人或家属、走访被申请人所居住的社区；审查被申请人危险性时，可从病理层面、既往肇事史、家属监管、物质滥用史、外部因素、人格特征、个人基本情况七方面进行。第三部分是刑事强制医疗程序适用条件存在的问题及完善建议。根据调研结果和实践反映的情况，刑事强制医疗程序适用条件存在着司法精神病鉴定意见主导审判、危险性评估缺乏具体标准、精神医学专家参与无制度支持三大问题。针对这三个问题，笔者提出将“刑事责任能力评定”剥离司法精神医学鉴定、建立危险性评估机制和建立精神医学专家参与制度三大建议。其中将“刑事责任能力评定”剥离司法精神医学鉴定应从近期和远期两方面进行。近期鉴定人仍可以鉴定外单独提出意见的方式提出评定建议，远期则由法官和鉴定人共同评定刑事责任能力，法官为主，鉴定人为辅。建立危险性评估机制应从立法确定危险性评估具体标准和考量因素、编制刑事强制医疗程序中精神障碍者危险性评定量表或指南、将危险性入司法精神医学鉴定项目三方面进行。精神医学专家参与刑事强制医疗程序时，有条件的地方和复杂、疑难案件应尽可能采用专家陪审的方式，条件不足的可采取专家咨询方式，建议设立全国性或省级的精神卫生专家咨询委员会，并出台相应的专家咨询规则。
[Abstract]:In addition to the introduction, this article is divided into three parts.
The first part is the normative analysis of the applicable conditions of the criminal compulsory medical procedure. On the subject, the author advocates a broad understanding of the word "mental obstacle"; the judge has the right to judge the ability of criminal responsibility, and points out the three misunderstandings of the judicial personnel's assessment of the ability of criminal responsibility: it is confirmed by the appraiser that "the disease is not guilty." "The understanding of the ability to identify control remains at the conceptual level. As for the elements of behavior, the author advocates the exclusion of the crime of simply invading the property; the analysis of the social harmfulness of the acts of the claimant should take a comprehensive consideration of the means of crime, the place of the crime, the extent of the expected harm, the number and frequency of the crime, and the criminal attempt may also be incorporated into the criminal strength. The criminal compulsory medical procedure can be traced to the past, but the time is not too early, and the monitoring will, condition of guardianship, the development of the condition, and the follow-up situation should be examined. As for the necessary conditions, the author advocates that the applicant can not be directly presumed to be of social danger by the seriousness of the crime and the God's disease. The social danger should be serious (including serious recidivism and high recurrence risk), immediate, other methods are sufficient to eliminate the risk of the applicant and need not be forced into hospital treatment. In this analysis, the author enumerates 6 situations that may continue to harm the society and 3 conditions that do not continue to harm the society.
The second part is the examination and judgment of the applicable conditions of the criminal compulsory medical procedure. On the subject matter, the author thinks that the judicial personnel should set up the idea of "no disease presumption". When examining the opinions of judicial mental illness, we should start with the form review and the substantive examination. The material examination, identification method and analysis process. The substantive review should first combine the other evidence to review the possibility of "charging the mental illness" and "buy the appraisal", and then combine the disease and the case with the severity of the mental symptoms and the seriousness of the criminal behavior, and whether the behavior person can recognize the content of the behavior. The consequences and whether or not knowing the right or wrong of the behavior, the weakening of the control ability and its degree of three aspects to assess the ability of the applicant's criminal responsibility. Whether the confession is compatible with its intelligence, memory and expression; in the case of contradiction and inconsistency between the confession and other evidence, the cause of the contradiction is found; in cases of less direct evidence, a psychiatry expert is introduced to the judiciary to examine the confession of the applicant. The judicial personnel should make their own judgment and give reasons on the basis of comprehensive factors. The standard of proof of the risk assessment should be reached "clear and persuasive standard of proof". In assessing the social danger of the applicant, the judiciary should meet the applicant and consult the appraiser. The chief physician, inquiring the legal agent or family of the applicant, visiting the community in which the applicant lived; when examining the risk of the applicant, it can be carried out from seven aspects of the pathological level, the history of the past accident, the supervision of the family members, the history of substance abuse, the external factors, personality characteristics and the basic personal situation.
The third part is the existing problems and suggestions for the application conditions of criminal compulsory medical procedures. According to the results of the investigation and practice, the application conditions of criminal compulsory medical procedures exist in the leading trial of judicial psychiatric appraisal opinions, the lack of specific standards for the assessment of risk assessment, and the participation of the experts in the three major problems without institutional support. On these three questions, the author puts forward the three suggestions that the "assessment of criminal responsibility ability" will be stripped of forensic mental medical identification, the establishment of risk assessment mechanism and the establishment of the participation system of mental medical experts. The forensic appraisal should be carried out from two aspects in the near future and in the long term. In the future, the judges and the appraisers can assess the ability of criminal responsibility jointly by the judges and the appraisers, the judges and the appraisers are supplemented by the judges and the judges. The risk assessment mechanism should be established from the legislation to determine the specific criteria and factors for the assessment of the risk, and the risk assessment of the mentally handicapped in the criminal compulsory medical procedure should be compiled. The quantitative table or guide will be carried out in three aspects of the judicial mental medical appraisal project. When mental medical experts participate in the criminal compulsory medical procedure, there are conditions and complex conditions. The difficult cases should be done by the way of expert jury. The lack of conditions can take expert consultation and suggest the establishment of national or provincial mental health. The expert advisory committee and issued the corresponding expert consultation rules.

【学位授予单位】：西南政法大学
【学位级别】：硕士
【学位授予年份】：2014
【分类号】：D925.2

【参考文献】