法医学杂志 ›› 2014, Vol. 30 ›› Issue (6): 431-433.DOI: 10.3969/j.issn.1004-5619.2014.06.007

• 论著 • 上一篇    下一篇

毒品所致精神障碍者刑事责任能力评定现状调查

张盛宇1,赵  海2,蔡伟雄1,汤  涛1,管  唯1   

  1. ZHANG Sheng-yu1, ZHAO Hai2, CAI Wei-xiong1, TANG Tao1, GUAN Wei1
  • 发布日期:2014-12-25 出版日期:2014-12-28
  • 通讯作者: 管唯,男,主任法医师,主要从事司法精神病学科研及鉴定;E-mail:weiguan@eastday.com
  • 作者简介:张盛宇(1987—),男,上海人,硕士,研究实习员,主要从事司法精神病学科研及鉴定;E-mail:tmac1zsy@163.com
  • 基金资助:

    国家社会科学基金资助项目(13BFX054);中央级公益性科研院所基本科研业务费(GY2014Z-2)

Assessment on the Criminal Responsibility of Drug-induced Mental Disorders: A Questionnaire Survey

(1. 司法部司法鉴定科学技术研究所 上海市法医学重点实验室,上海 200063; 2. 上海市公安局水上公安局,上海 200002)   

  1. (1. Shanghai Key Laboratory of Forensic Medicine, Institute of Forensic Science, Ministry of Justice, P.R.China, Shanghai 200063, China; 2. Harbor Public Security Subbureau, Shanghai Public Security Bureau, Shanghai 200002, China)
  • Online:2014-12-25 Published:2014-12-28

摘要: 目的 了解毒品所致精神障碍者刑事责任能力评定现状及鉴定人对此类案件的观点。 方法 自编《毒品所致精神障碍者责任能力评定调查表》,选择上海市法医精神病鉴定机构的鉴定人为调查对象,通过信访方式收集调查表。 结果 大部分鉴定人知晓《精神障碍者刑事责任能力评定指南》(简称《指南》)对毒品所致精神障碍者刑事责任能力评定做出了“不宜评定”的特别规定。《指南》颁布前后,所有的鉴定人均未做出过无刑事责任能力的评定;《指南》颁布后,部分鉴定人仍做出完全或限定刑事责任能力的评定。对作案与症状无关、明知吸毒可致精神错乱却放纵吸毒的案例,鉴定人分歧较小。对作案与症状相关、辨控能力丧失的案例,鉴定人分歧较明显。为消除此类案件刑事责任能力评定的分歧,完善立法认同率最高。 结论 目前在此类案件鉴定实践中,大部分鉴定人并未严格按照《指南》规定执行,刑事责任能力评定仍存在明显分歧。

关键词: 司法精神病学, 毒品所致精神障碍, 刑事责任能力

Abstract:  Objective To understand the assessment on the criminal responsibility of drug-induced mental disorders and judicial experts’ opinions. Methods The judicial experts from institutes of forensic psychiatry in Shanghai were selected. They were asked to finish a self-made questionnaire of assessment on the criminal responsibility of drug-induced mental disorders by letters and visits. Results Most of experts knew the special regulation, “not suitable for evaluation” towards the criminal responsibility of drug-induced mental disorders of the guideline promulgated by Ministry of Justice. Before and after the guideline was issued, no expert made a no-responsibility opinion in such cases. After the guideline was issued, some experts made a full-responsibility or limited-responsibility opinion in such cases. There was a little disagreement among the experts in the case that the crime was unrelated with mental symptoms or the criminals used drugs even though he knew it could induced insanity. But there were still many obvious disagreements among experts in the case that crime was related to such symptoms and person was no ability to debate. Most experts agreed to settle the disagreements with improved legislative perfection. Conclusion Most experts are not strictly complying with the assessment guidelines during their practice, and there is still an obvious disagreement towards the criminal responsibility of drug-induced mental disorders.

Key words: forensic psychiatry, drug-induced mental disorders, criminal responsibility

中图分类号: