本文選題：癲癇所致精神障礙 + 犯罪學(xué)特征　； 參考：《四川大學(xué)》2007年碩士論文

【摘要】： 目的：探討癲癇所致精神障礙違法者的犯罪學(xué)特征、精神病理學(xué)因素及其社會(huì)功能狀況，研究其刑事責(zé)任能力評定的影響因素，，加深對癲癇所致精神障礙違法者犯罪行為的認(rèn)識，為法醫(yī)精神病學(xué)鑒定提供理論依據(jù)。 方法：首先將所有符合納入標(biāo)準(zhǔn)的樣本使用自編法醫(yī)精神病學(xué)鑒定登記表逐項(xiàng)登記、整理，同時(shí)完成GAF評分、PANSS評分、SDSS評分。然后將數(shù)據(jù)輸入電腦，使用SPSS13．0進(jìn)行統(tǒng)計(jì)分析，根據(jù)CCMD-3作出鑒定診斷的不同分為研究組(癲癇所致精神障礙組)和對照組(無精神病組)，并進(jìn)行一般人口學(xué)資料、犯罪學(xué)特征的對照統(tǒng)計(jì)分析；根據(jù)責(zé)任能力的有無，將研究組進(jìn)一步細(xì)分為有刑事責(zé)任能力組(包括部分刑事責(zé)任能力者)和無刑事責(zé)任能力組，并進(jìn)行相關(guān)對照分析；根據(jù)研究組中影響被鑒定人作案的主要癥狀不同，從另外一個(gè)角度將研究組進(jìn)一步細(xì)分為精神病性癥狀組和人格改變組，并進(jìn)行相關(guān)對照分析。最后以有無刑事責(zé)任能力為因變量，其他相關(guān)因素為自變量進(jìn)行Spearman或Pearson相關(guān)分析和Logistic回歸分析，并得出研究結(jié)論。 結(jié)果：研究組與對照組相比，在智商(P=0．000)、言語智商(P=0．000)、操作智商(P=0．000)、鑒定時(shí)距離案發(fā)時(shí)的時(shí)間間隔(P=0．028)、作案動(dòng)機(jī)(P=0．000)、作案前的準(zhǔn)備活動(dòng)(P=0．000)、作案是否順利(P=0．044)、值班巡邏情況(P=0．000)、對作案時(shí)間(日期、鐘點(diǎn))的選擇(P=0．000)、對作案時(shí)間選擇的主要考慮因素(P=0．000)、作案后是否自稱遺忘(P=0．000)、作案后的反應(yīng)(P=0．003)、案件類型(P=0．008)和作案結(jié)果(P=0．032)方面的差異具有統(tǒng)計(jì)學(xué)意義。 精神病性癥狀組與人格改變組相比，在鑒定時(shí)距離案發(fā)時(shí)的時(shí)間間隔(P=0．001)、作案前有無誘發(fā)事件(P=0．000)、作案動(dòng)機(jī)(P=0．000)、作案是否順利(P=0．028)、作案目的(P=0．000)、作案后是否自稱遺忘(P=0．009)、作案后的反應(yīng)(P=0．004)、GAF評分(P=0．000)、P分(P=0．000)、N分(P=0．000)、G分(P=0．000)、PANSS總分(P=0．000)、SDSS總分(P=0．000)方面的差異具有統(tǒng)計(jì)學(xué)意義。 無刑事責(zé)任能力組與有刑事責(zé)任能力組相比，在鑒定時(shí)距離案發(fā)時(shí)的時(shí)間間隔(P=0．027)、作案前有無誘發(fā)事件(P=0．000)、作案動(dòng)機(jī)(P=0．000)、作案目的(P=0．000)、作案后是否自稱遺忘(P=0．009)、作案后的反應(yīng)(P=0．007)、GAF評分(P=0．000)、P分(P=0．000)、N分(P=0．000)、G分(P=0．000)、PANSS總分(P=0．000)、SDSS總分(P=0．000)方面的差異具有統(tǒng)計(jì)學(xué)意義。 進(jìn)行相關(guān)性分析后發(fā)現(xiàn)，刑事責(zé)任能力的評定與誘發(fā)事件(r=-0．299)、作案動(dòng)機(jī)(r=-0．464)、作案目的(r=-0．439)、自稱遺忘(r=0．231)、作案后反應(yīng)(r=-0．266)、診斷(r=0．845)、GAF評分(r=-0．677)、P分(r=-0．543)、N分(r=-0．482)、G分(r=-0．613)、PANSS總分(r=-0．578)、SDSS總分(r=-0．369)共12個(gè)因素間存在相關(guān)關(guān)系，其中與診斷之間存在最強(qiáng)的正相關(guān)，r=0．845。以有無刑事責(zé)任能力作為因變量Y(二分類變量)，上述與評定責(zé)任能力之間存在相關(guān)性的12個(gè)因素作為自變量X，進(jìn)行Logistic回歸分析后發(fā)現(xiàn)，只有GAF評分(OR=0．325，P=0)、G分(OR=0．837，P=0．003)和診斷(OR=3．783，P=0．023)三個(gè)因素進(jìn)入方程，其中診斷為危險(xiǎn)性因素，GAF評分和G分為保護(hù)性因素。 結(jié)論：癲癇所致精神障礙違法者在犯罪學(xué)特征方面，作案動(dòng)機(jī)、作案后是否自稱遺忘、作案后的反應(yīng)可作為刑事責(zé)任能力評定的重要參考指標(biāo)。研究組與對照組相比在智商、言語智商、操作智商方面評分明顯偏低；精神病性癥狀組與人格改變組相比、無刑事責(zé)任能力組與有刑事責(zé)任能力組相比，在智商、言語智商、操作智商方面的差異并無統(tǒng)計(jì)學(xué)意義，在GAF評分、P分、N分、G分、PANSS總分、SDSS總分方面的差異均具有統(tǒng)計(jì)學(xué)意義，需充分重視GAF、PANSS、SDSS在癲癇所致精神障礙違法者刑事責(zé)任能力評定中的參考價(jià)值。最后經(jīng)Logistic回歸分析發(fā)現(xiàn)，GAF評分、G分和診斷三個(gè)因素是癲癇所致精神障礙違法者刑事責(zé)任能力評定的主要影響因素。另外，精神病性癥狀組與無刑事責(zé)任能力組、人格改變組與有刑事責(zé)任能力組之間具有較強(qiáng)的一致性，需充分重視正確診斷在刑事責(zé)任能力評定中的重要作用。
[Abstract]:Objective : To study the criminological characteristics , psychopathology factors and social function status of the patients with mental disorders due to epilepsy , to study the influencing factors of their criminal responsibility ability assessment , to deepen the understanding of the criminal behavior of mental disorders caused by epilepsy , and to provide theoretical basis for forensic psychiatric appraisal .





Methods : All samples conforming to the inclusion criteria were registered and sorted by self - compiled forensic psychiatric accreditation registration form , and the GAF score , PANSS score and SDSS score were completed at the same time . Then , the data were input into the computer , and the data were input into the computer . Then , the data were input into the computer , and the data were analyzed by SPSS 13.0 . According to CCMD - 3 , the diagnosis was divided into the study group ( mental disorder group caused by epilepsy ) and the control group ( no psychosis group ) , and the comparative statistical analysis of general demographic data and criminological characteristics was carried out .
Based on the presence or absence of responsibility , the study group is further subdivided into criminal liability groups ( including some of the criminal responsibility capabilities ) and the non - criminal liability group , and the relevant control analysis is carried out ;
The study group was further divided into psychotic symptom group and personality change group according to the main symptoms of the study group , and the related control analysis was carried out . Finally , based on the ability of criminal responsibility as the dependent variable and other relevant factors as independent variables , Pearson correlation analysis and Logistic regression analysis were performed on the independent variables , and the conclusion was drawn .





Results : Compared with the control group , the study group had significant difference in the intelligence quotient ( P = 0.000 ) , verbal intelligence quotient ( P = 0.000 ) , operator intelligence quotient ( P = 0.000 ) , time interval at the time of identification ( P = 0.028 ) , the case type ( P = 0.000 ) , the case type ( P = 0.003 ) , the case type ( P = 0.008 ) and the case type ( P = 0.032 ) .





Compared with the personality change group , the time interval ( P = 0 . 001 ) , the time interval ( P = 0.000 ) , the case motivation ( P = 0.000 ) , the score of GAF ( P = 0.000 ) , the total score of PANSS ( P = 0.000 ) , the total score of SDSS ( P = 0.000 ) and the total score of SDSS ( P = 0.000 ) were statistically significant .





Compared with the criminal liability group , there was a significant difference between the time interval ( P = 0.027 ) , the time interval ( P = 0.000 ) , the case motivation ( P = 0.000 ) , the case purpose ( P = 0.000 ) , the total score ( P = 0.000 ) , the total score of PANSS ( P = 0.000 ) , the total score of SDSS ( P = 0.000 ) and the total score of SDSS ( P = 0.000 ) .





Correlation analysis revealed that there was a correlation between the evaluation of criminal responsibility and the evoked event ( r = - 0.299 ) , the motive of action ( r = - 0.464 ) , the purpose of the action ( r = - 0.439 ) , the post - action response ( r = - 0.643 ) , the total score of PANSS ( r = - 0.482 ) , the score of G ( r = - 0.643 ) , the total score of PANSS ( r = - 0.482 ) , the total score of SDSS ( r = - 0.673 ) , the total score of PANSS ( r = - 0.578 ) , the total score of SDSS ( r = - 0.673 ) , the total score of PANSS ( r = - 0.578 ) , the total score of SDSS ( r = - 0.673 ) , the score of G ( OR = 0.837 , P = 0 ) . 003 ) The three factors of diagnosis ( OR = 3.783 , P = 0.023 ) entered the equation , in which the diagnosis was the risk factor , GAF score and G were divided into protective factors .





Conclusion : It is an important reference for the evaluation of the ability of criminal responsibility in the aspects of the characteristics of criminology , the motive of the crime , whether it is self - forgotten or not , and the post - action response can be regarded as an important reference index for the evaluation of criminal responsibility .
Compared with the group of criminal responsibility , there was no significant difference in the scores of GAF , PANSS and SDSS .
【學(xué)位授予單位】：四川大學(xué)
【學(xué)位級別】：碩士
【學(xué)位授予年份】：2007
【分類號】：D919.3

【引證文獻(xiàn)】

相關(guān)博士學(xué)位論文 前1條

1 孫大明;刑事責(zé)任能力評定研究[D];華東政法大學(xué);2012年

本文編號：2008897