發(fā)布時間：2018-03-11 07:46

  本文選題：精神失�？罐q　切入點：心智健全推定　出處：《證據(jù)科學(xué)》2014年04期 　論文類型：期刊論文

【摘要】：心智健全推定卸除了控方對被告人心智健全的證明責(zé)任,將爭點形成責(zé)任交由辯方承擔(dān)。而精神失常在美國刑事法中屬于積極抗辯事由,根據(jù)聯(lián)邦和多數(shù)州的司法實踐,由辯方承擔(dān)提出初步的舉證責(zé)任,并承擔(dān)"清晰、信服"程度的說服責(zé)任。相較之下,我國目前刑事實體法的建構(gòu)與刑事證明之間沒有明確的銜接,以至于刑事證明的功能無法有效實現(xiàn)。司法精神病鑒定是目前查實被告人是否精神失常的主要手段,但啟動權(quán)主要其中在公安司法機關(guān)手中,辯方權(quán)利受到較大限制,而對鑒定人以及鑒定證據(jù)亦缺乏體系性的證據(jù)審用規(guī)則。司法精神病鑒定應(yīng)當(dāng)納入刑事證明的軌道,辯方如欲推翻心智健全推定,應(yīng)提出相應(yīng)證據(jù),繼而說服責(zé)任的分配要區(qū)分辯方證明主張:該鑒定意見是對控方對犯罪主觀方面要素證明的反駁,還是主張責(zé)任阻卻。前者由控方證明到排除合理懷疑的程度,而后者則由辯方證明到清晰、信服的程度。在此證明原理的基礎(chǔ)上,鑒定人有義務(wù)出庭對鑒定意見進行口頭陳述或展示,并接受對造的質(zhì)證。鑒定意見的證據(jù)能力則由法庭依法判斷,其證明力則由法庭自由評價。
[Abstract]:The presumption of mental integrity removes the burden of proof of the mental integrity of the accused and places the responsibility for the formation of points of contention on the defence. Whereas mental disorders are a positive defence in United States criminal law, according to the judicial practice of the Federation and most states, The defense bears the initial burden of proof, and bears the burden of persuasion to the extent of "clarity and conviction". In contrast, there is no clear link between the construction of criminal substantive law and the proof of criminal evidence in our country at present. So that the function of criminal proof can not be effectively realized. Forensic psychiatric identification is the main means to ascertain whether the defendant is mentally disturbed, but the right to start is mainly in the hands of the public security judicial organ, and the defense right is greatly restricted. The forensic psychiatric examination should be included in the track of criminal proof. If the defense wants to overturn the presumption of mental integrity, it should present the corresponding evidence. Then the distribution of the burden of persuasion should distinguish between the argument of the defense: whether the opinion refutes the prosecution's proof of the subjective elements of the crime, or whether the burden of persuasion is obstructed, the former from proof by the prosecution to the degree of beyond reasonable doubt. On the basis of the principle of proof, the expert is obliged to present an oral presentation or presentation of the opinion. The evidence capacity of the appraisal opinion shall be judged by the court according to law, and the power of proof shall be evaluated freely by the court.
【作者單位】： 清華大學(xué)法學(xué)院;
【分類號】：D925.2;D971.2

【參考文獻】

相關(guān)期刊論文 前3條

1 張吉喜;;論美國刑事訴訟中的證明責(zé)任分配標(biāo)準[J];當(dāng)代法學(xué);2007年04期

2 何恬;;英美兩國對精神病人刑事責(zé)任能力評判的演變[J];證據(jù)科學(xué);2008年01期

3 魏曉娜;;再談精神病抗辯問題[J];人民檢察;2007年07期

【共引文獻】

相關(guān)期刊論文 前10條

1 張曙光;;一種“事實關(guān)系”型行為——刑法中持有之規(guī)范論描述[J];安徽大學(xué)法律評論;2010年01期

2 梅錦;;論我國犯罪構(gòu)成理論的完善——以不同犯罪論體系的比較為視角[J];安徽大學(xué)學(xué)報(哲學(xué)社會科學(xué)版);2011年01期

3 勞東燕;;犯罪故意的要素分析模式[J];比較法研究;2009年01期

4 黎e，

本文編號：1597226