法医学杂志

法医学杂志 ›› 2013, Vol. 29 ›› Issue (4): 263-267.DOI: 10.3969/j.issn.1004-5619.2013.04.007

• 论著 • 上一篇    下一篇

辨认和控制能力与责任能力司法精神鉴定差异的调查

李学武1，高北陵1，胡  峰2，吴  超3，张  华4，关亚军5，赖  武6，李  毅1，王  轶1，吴冬凌1，操小兰1   

  1. （1. 深圳市康宁医院 深圳市心理健康实验室，广东 深圳 518020； 2. 苏州广济医院，江苏 苏州 215008； 3. 深圳市福田区人民检察院，广东 深圳 518048； 4. 清华大学深圳研究生院法律系，广东 深圳 518055； 5. 深圳市公安局，广东 深圳 518001； 6. 深圳市中级法院刑事审判庭，广东 深圳 518027）
  • 发布日期:2013-08-25 出版日期:2013-08-28
  • 通讯作者: 高北陵，女，博士，主任医师，教授，主要从事法医精神病鉴定；E-mail：blgao@21cn.com
  • 作者简介:李学武（1976—），男，河南伊川人，博士研究生，副主任医师，主要从事法医精神病鉴定；E-mail：lixwly@163.com

Difference between the Cognitive and Control Ability and the Responsibility in Forensic Psychiatry Evaluation

LI XUE-WU1, GAO BEI-LING1, HU FENG2, WU CHAO3, ZHANG HUA4, GUAN YA-JUN5, LAI WU6, LI YI1, WANG YI1, WU DONG-LING1, CAO XIAO-LAN1   

  1. （1. Key Laboratory for Psychological Healthcare of Shenzhen, Kangning Hospital of Shenzhen, Shenzhen 518020, China; 2. Guangji Hospital of Suzhou, Suzhou 215008, China; 3. Prosecutor’s Office of Futian District of Shenzhen, Shenzhen 518048, China; 4. Faculty of Law, Graduate School at Shenzhen, Tsinghua University, Shenzhen 518055, China; 5. Public Security Bureau of Shenzhen, Shenzhen 518001, China; 6. Intermediate People’s Court Criminal Division of Shenzhen, Shenzhen 518027, China）
  • Online:2013-08-25 Published:2013-08-28

摘要： 目的 比较辨认和控制能力（以下简称“辨控能力”）与责任能力司法精神鉴定的差异。 方法 对2001年1月—2006年10月（第一时段）实施责任能力与2006年11月—2010年10月（第二时段）在刑事案件中实施辨控能力的评定结果进行比较。回访调查上述被鉴定人的法庭判决及鉴定意见的采信情况。调查公、检、法、司等法学界人士对司法精神鉴定相关问题的观点。 结果 两个时段的鉴定案件类型大致相仿，差异无统计学意义（P>0.05）；但两个时段作出的精神障碍诊断类型，差异有统计学意义（P<0.05）。第二时段鉴定为正常范围辨控能力和部分辨控能力的人数比例较第一时段多，而完全丧失辨控能力的人数比例较第一时段少（P<0.05）。70.5%的法学界人士认为司法精神鉴定“评定辨控能力”有别于“评定刑事责任能力”。94.9%认为“作出精神病症对行为人作案行为的影响及其影响程度”或“作出辨控能力”的司法精神鉴定是符合要求的规范行为。 结论 评定辨控能力比评定责任能力更符合当前法学要求和自身学科的行为规范。

关键词: 司法精神病学, 责任能力, 辨认和控制能力

Abstract: Objective To analyze the difference between the cognitive and control ability and the responsibility in forensic psychiatry evaluation. Methods To compare the results of the responsibility evaluation from 2001.1 to 2006.10 （the first period） with that of the cognitive and control ability evaluation from 2006.11 to 2010.10 （the second period）. The admissibility opinions on court judgment and evaluation were investigated by return visit. The legal professions’ opinions on forensic psychiatric issues from the police office, the procuratorate, the court, and the judiciary were investigated. Results There was no significant difference of the criminal types between two periods （P>0.05）. There was significant difference of the diagnostic types between two periods （P<0.05）. The proportion of normal range and part loss of the cognitive and control ability in the second period were higher than that in the first period, but the proportion of complete loss of the cognitive and control ability in the second period was lower than that in the first period （P<0.05）. Among the legal professions, 70.5% of them thought that “the evaluation of cognitive and control ability” was different from “the evaluation of criminal responsibility” and 94.9% of them thought that “to confirm the influence of the forensic psychiatric evaluation of mental disorder on the crime behavior” or “to assess of cognitive and control ability” met requirements of normative judicial expertise. Conclusion The evaluation of cognitive and control ability is more aligned with legal requirements and behavioral norms of own subject than the evaluation of responsibility.

Key words: forensic psychiatry, responsibility, cognitive and control ability

中图分类号: