精神病人强制医疗程序证据问题研究

发布时间：2018-05-25 00:43

本文选题：强制医疗程序 + 鉴定意见　；参考：《华东政法大学》2014年硕士论文

【摘要】：新《刑事诉讼法》将精神病人强制医疗程序作为一个刑事特别程序用专章予以规定，这一程序推动了强制医疗从行政化处理方式向司法化处理方式的迈进，不仅可以防止精神病人对社会造成危害，也致力于保护精神病人的权利，限制公权力以防止“被精神病”现象的发生。然而有关这一程序的具体规定过于原则化且缺乏可操作性。《最高人民法院关于适用＜中华人民共和国刑事诉讼法＞的解释》结合实践对这一程序作了不少补充，，但仍有许多不足之处，以致实践中难免会面临各种于法无据的问题，其中包括证据及证明上的问题。在任何法律制度中证据皆是解决争端的关键，因此证明责任和证据规则对一个程序的有效运行来说至关重要。强制医疗程序中证据问题事关公关安全和人权保障，在法律规定上却近乎一片空白。一方面一般人甚至在一些法律工作人员心中，存在把行为人患精神疾病等同于免除刑事责任的误区，引发一些社会争议，导致舆论干扰裁判。另一方面对证据问题的原则化规定导致自由裁量权的不当放大，尤其在强制医疗程序救济途径缺乏的当下将导致更多的权力寻租现象，或使有轻微违法行为的人被当做精神病人进行强制关押和治疗。本文笔者拟对证据法上的问题进行一番系统的解析，以期对司法实践产生有益的借鉴。本文共分为三部分：本文第一章围医疗程序中的核心证据——鉴定意见展开，着重探讨鉴定意见的审查和采信程序。鉴定意见由于对象的复杂和医疗水平的局限使得法官对于这一证据的审查和采信不够科学有效，实践中鉴定人时常成为了案件的事实裁决者，法庭上的审查流于形式。为了保证审判权的完整性，有必要在树立医学问题由鉴定人负责，法律和事实问题由法官把握的基础上，对鉴定意见的审查和采信程序进行重构和保障。本文第二章对精神病人强制医疗程序中的证明活动进行剖析。一方面分“实9有67施暴力行为”、“危害公共安全或严重危害公民人身安全”、“经法定程序鉴定”、“依法不负刑事责任的精神病人”、“有继续危害社会可能”、“可以予以强制医疗”六个要点来解读刑诉法第二百八十四条，对精神病人强制医疗的适用条件进行实体把握。为证明活动的开展提供依据。另一方面针对作出强制医疗决定所要证明的“达到暴力犯罪程度”“刑事责任能力”“人身危险性”这三个证明对象，分别论述其证明责任的承担、所需达到的证明标准等问题。本文第三章主要探讨与精神病程序证据运用联系比较紧密的两个问题，关系到鉴定意见这一核心证据的搜集及搜集过程中的保障，包括精神病人鉴定期间及进入强制医疗程序中的安置和精神病鉴定启动权的配置。
[Abstract]:The new Code of Criminal procedure provides compulsory medical procedure for mental patients as a special criminal procedure, which promotes the compulsory medical treatment from administrative treatment to judicial treatment. It can not only prevent the mental patients from harming the society, but also protect the rights of the mental patients and limit the public power in order to prevent the phenomenon of psychosis. However, the specific provisions on this procedure are too principled and lack of maneuverability. The interpretation of the Supreme people's Court on the application of the Criminal procedure Law of the people's Republic of China, combined with practice, has added a lot to this procedure. But there are still many inadequacies, so it is inevitable to face a variety of unsubstantiated problems in practice, including evidence and proof. Evidence is the key to the settlement of disputes in any legal system, so the burden of proof and rules of evidence are essential to the effective operation of a procedure. Evidence in compulsory medical procedure is related to public relations safety and human rights, but it is almost blank in law. On the one hand, even in the minds of some legal staff, there are some misunderstandings that equate the mental illness of the perpetrator with the exemption from criminal responsibility, which leads to some social disputes, leading to public opinion interfering with the judgment. On the other hand, the rule of principle of evidence problem leads to the improper amplification of discretion, especially in the absence of compulsory medical procedure relief, which will lead to more power rent-seeking phenomenon. Or make a person who commits a minor offence mandatory detention and treatment as a mental patient. The author intends to make a systematic analysis of the problems in the law of evidence in order to make useful reference to the judicial practice. This paper is divided into three parts: In the first chapter, the core evidence in the medical procedure, the appraisal opinion, is developed, and the procedure of examination and acceptance of the appraisal opinion is discussed. Due to the complexity of the object and the limitation of the medical level, the judge's examination and acceptance of the evidence is not scientific and effective. In practice, the expert often becomes the factual adjudicator of the case, and the examination in the court is a mere formality. In order to ensure the integrity of judicial power, it is necessary to reconstruct and guarantee the procedure of examination and acceptance of appraisal opinions on the basis of establishing that medical problems are the responsibility of experts, and that legal and factual issues are under the control of judges. The second chapter analyzes the proof activity in compulsory medical procedure for mental patients. On the one hand, there are "67 acts of violence", "endangering public safety or seriously endangering the personal safety of citizens", "assessed by legal procedures", "mentally ill persons who are not criminally responsible according to law", and "having the possibility of continuing to endanger society". "can give compulsory medical treatment" six main points to interpret the criminal procedure law article 284, carries on the entity grasp to the mental patient compulsory medical treatment suitable condition. To provide evidence for the development of certification activities. On the other hand, aiming at the three objects of "reaching the level of violent crime", "criminal responsibility ability" and "personal danger", which should be proved by making the compulsory medical decision, the paper discusses the burden of proof respectively. The standard of proof needed to be met, etc. The third chapter mainly discusses two problems which are closely related to the use of evidence of psychiatric procedure, which is related to the collection of the core evidence of expert opinion and the protection of the collection process. Includes placement during psychiatric identification and compulsory medical procedures and allocation of psychiatric priming rights.
【学位授予单位】：华东政法大学
【学位级别】：硕士
【学位授予年份】：2014
【分类号】：D925.2

【参考文献】