精神病人论文：精神病人刑事责任能力之研究.doc

精神病人论文：精神病人刑事责任能力之研究【中文摘要】我国刑法规定:精神病人在不能辨认或者不能控制自己行为的时候造成危害结果,经法定程序鉴定确认的,不负刑事责任,但是应当责令他的家属或者监护人严加看管和医疗;在必要的时候由政府强制医疗。间歇性精神病人在精神正常的时候犯罪,应当负刑事责任。尚未完全丧失或者辨认自己能力的精神病人犯罪的,应当负刑事责任,但是可以从轻或者减轻处罚。因精神病人作为犯罪主体的特殊性,司法实务中,在如何认定犯罪人是否为精神病人、精神病与刑事责任的认定以及如何对精神病犯罪人进行刑罚等问题上存在诸多争议。对精神病人犯罪案件的处理也广受社会关注。本文以笔者所在法院审理的一起精神病人杀人案件为例,针对以上争议焦点展开分析论述,得出研究结论,以期对精神病人犯罪案件的处理提供有价值的参考。全文除引言之外分为五个部分,共计约1.5万字:第一部分是案由。为潘某故意杀人案。第二部分是案情。简述潘某犯罪过程,委托鉴定情况,辩护人意见以及判决结果。第三部分是案件焦点。总结本文案例中存在争议的三大焦点:一是精神病鉴定程序及鉴定书的采信问题;二是精神病与刑事责任能力的司法认定问题;三是精神病人犯罪的刑罚执行问题。第四部分是争议与分歧意见。分别针对以上案件焦点,对理论界及司法实践中存在的各种观点进行研究:针对第一个焦点,分别例举了七种不同意见进行分析,得出笔者赞同的在一案多份鉴定结论下,应当采信较为客观的鉴定结论这一观点;针对第二个焦点,文章阐述了精神病人刑事责任能力的分类以及认定标准,并结合案例,论述如何判定精神病犯罪嫌疑人在作案时的精神病症状与作案行为间的因果关系;针对第三个焦点,笔者通过分析我国目前对精神疾患罪犯的刑罚执行现状,剖析存在问题,并结合精神卫生法(草案)展开对该项问题的理论构建。第五部分是研究结论,运用本文中研究得出的鉴定结论的采信、精神病与刑事责任能力的认定以及精神病罪犯的刑罚执行问题上的理论观点,对本文案例争议焦点分析后得出结论,使得本文案例的争议焦点得到合理的解决。【英文摘要】It is formulated in Chinas criminal law that psychotics will be criminally irresponsible when they cannot recognize or control their behaviors causing harmful results and being confirmed by legal procedures, but they should be ordered to be under intensive guardian and medical care by his family; when necessary, the government will provide forced medical care. Intermittent psychotics shall bear criminal responsibility for the crime he committed in the spirit of the normal time. Those who are not yet completely lost or identify their ability should be held criminally responsible, but can be held with lighter or mitigated punishment. Because of the special nature of the subject of crime as a result of mentally illness, in judicial practice, there are many disputes on how to identify whether a suspect is mentally ill, mental illness, how to identify mentally illness and criminal responsibility and how to identify the issue of penalties on perpetrators of mental illness. The handling of criminal cases involving mental patients has well received concerns by society. In this paper, the author bases on a murder case of a psychotic handled in the court where he works to analyze the focus of controversy and to draw conclusions, with a view to providing a valuable reference to the handling of criminal cases involving psychotics.The paper consists of five parts except the introduction, with about fifteen thousand words.The first part is the causes of the case: Panintentional homicide case.The second part is the facts of the case. It makes a description of the criminal process, commissioned identification situations, counsel opinions and judgments.The third part is the focus of the case. Three focuses in this case are summarized as follows: first, the admissibility of psychiatric appraisal process and identification documents; second, the judicial identification of psychiatry and criminal capacity; third, and the penalties for enforcement of psychotics.The fourth part is the controversy and different opinions. For the aforementioned focuses, it is to study a variety of perspectives of the theorists and the judicial practice: For the first focus, it exemplifies seven different views to propose the view, which agree with the author, that a more objective conclusion should be adopted in the case of existing several identification conclusions; For the second focus, it describes the classification of mental patients criminal responsibility and the standard of its identification, and discusses how to determine the causality between the psychiatric symptoms when the crime occurs and the behaviors combing with examples; For the third focus , the author analyzes status of implementation of Chinas current criminal penalties for psychotics, dissects existing problems and start on theory building of this issue combing with the “Mental Health Law (Draft)”.The fifth part is the conclusion of the study. It bases on the theoretical perspectives resulting from the research in this article such as the admissibility of identification conclusion, the identification of psychiatry, criminal capacity and criminal penalties to draw conclusions on the focus of the case through the analysis, providing a reasonable solution to the focus of the dispute in this case.【关键词】精神病人 刑事责任能力 人身危险性 社会防卫 刑罚【英文关键词】psychotic criminal capacity personal dangerousness social defense penalty【目录】精神病人刑事责任能力之研究摘要6-7Abstract7-8引言11-12一、案由12二、案情12-13三、案件焦点13-14（一） 精神病鉴定程序及鉴定书的采信问题13（二） 精神病与刑事责任能力的司法认定问题13（三） 精神病人犯罪的刑罚执行问题13-14四、争议与分歧意见14-27（一） 我国刑法中精神病人的范围14-15（二） 精神病司法鉴定的规范与鉴定结论之采信15-191. 精神病司法鉴定的规范及其评析15-162. 结论不同精神病鉴定的采信16-193. 笔者主张：应采信较为客观的鉴定意见19（三） 精神病与刑事责任能力及其司法认定19-221. 刑事责任能力概述19-202. 精神病人刑事责任能力的分类20-213. 精神病人刑事责任能力的认定标准214. 如何判定精神病犯罪