本文選題：精神障礙者 + 刑事責(zé)任能力��； 參考：《四川師范大學(xué)》2017年碩士論文

【摘要】：責(zé)任能力的有無及程度直接關(guān)系著刑事案件的定性和處理,是刑法的論爭焦點(diǎn)之一。在我國,關(guān)于精神障礙者刑事責(zé)任能力的立法方式是醫(yī)學(xué)——法學(xué)的混合模式,但當(dāng)前對于精神障礙者刑事責(zé)任能力的判斷仍未形成統(tǒng)一的標(biāo)準(zhǔn)。本文立足于刑法學(xué)及精神醫(yī)學(xué)等,從精神障礙者刑事責(zé)任能力的概說出發(fā),認(rèn)為精神障礙是醫(yī)學(xué)概念和法學(xué)概念的交錯,對刑事責(zé)任能力判斷的關(guān)鍵在于控制能力和辨認(rèn)能力;其次論述精神障礙者刑事責(zé)任能力的本質(zhì)和地位,認(rèn)可刑事責(zé)任能力的本質(zhì)是犯罪能力的觀點(diǎn),贊同將刑事責(zé)任能力的地位闡述為責(zé)任要素說的觀點(diǎn);而后介紹英美法系和大陸法系國家關(guān)于精神障礙者刑事責(zé)任能力的判斷標(biāo)準(zhǔn),論述醫(yī)學(xué)-法學(xué)的混合判斷標(biāo)準(zhǔn)的可取之處;最后對精神障礙者刑事責(zé)任能力的判斷標(biāo)準(zhǔn)作出新嘗試,將其具體化,強(qiáng)調(diào)要把握主體、時間、等級和內(nèi)容四個標(biāo)準(zhǔn)。在主體標(biāo)準(zhǔn)上,堅(jiān)持法官的主導(dǎo)地位。在精神醫(yī)學(xué)鑒定人對是否存在精神障礙以及所患精神障礙的種類進(jìn)行判斷后的基礎(chǔ)上由法官獨(dú)立作出評估。在必要時,法官還可邀請心理專家與其共同對行為人的心理狀態(tài)作出判斷,最后法官結(jié)合前述兩位專家的意見綜合其他證據(jù),適當(dāng)考量社會的法感情于法規(guī)范上對精神障礙者的刑事責(zé)任能力做最終確認(rèn);在時間標(biāo)準(zhǔn)上,采用“追溯法”的判斷標(biāo)準(zhǔn)。將“行為時”追溯劃分為“過去時”、“涉案時”、“鑒定時”三個時間段以便于判斷,并且綜合考慮案件相關(guān)證據(jù)材料追溯至涉案時的精神狀態(tài)對其責(zé)任能力的影響程度;在等級標(biāo)準(zhǔn)上,堅(jiān)持三分制下的判斷標(biāo)準(zhǔn),法官在判斷行為人為完全刑事責(zé)任能力、無刑事責(zé)任能力還是限制責(zé)任能力時,可對這三種狀態(tài)進(jìn)行假設(shè),而后再根據(jù)具體案情和行為人的狀況排除兩種情形,得出最終結(jié)論;在內(nèi)容標(biāo)準(zhǔn)上,應(yīng)當(dāng)把握辨認(rèn)能力和控制能力的具體內(nèi)容,進(jìn)而作出判斷。接著以一個經(jīng)典舊案回歸實(shí)踐,將四個具體的判斷標(biāo)準(zhǔn)運(yùn)用于該案中以鞏固自己的立場,之后進(jìn)一步闡明其延伸意義。
[Abstract]:Whether or not the capacity of responsibility is directly related to the nature and handling of criminal cases is one of the focuses of debate in criminal law. In our country, the legislative mode of criminal responsibility ability of mental disorders is the mixed mode of medical-jurisprudence, but the judgment of criminal responsibility ability of mental disorders has not yet formed a unified standard. Based on the criminal law and psychiatric science, the author thinks that mental disorder is the interlacing of medical concept and legal concept, and the key to judge criminal responsibility ability lies in control ability and recognition ability. Secondly, it discusses the essence and status of the criminal responsibility ability of the mental disorder, recognizes that the essence of the criminal responsibility ability is the criminal ability, and agrees with the view that the position of the criminal responsibility ability is described as the responsibility element theory; Then it introduces the judgment standard of the criminal responsibility ability of the mental disorders in Anglo-American law system and the continental law system, and discusses the merits of the mixed judgment standard of medical-jurisprudence. Finally, a new attempt is made to judge the criminal responsibility ability of the mentally handicapped, which is concretized, emphasizing the four standards of subject, time, grade and content. In the subject standard, adhere to the leading position of the judge. On the basis of the judgment made by the psychiatrist on the existence of mental disorders and the types of mental disorders suffered from mental disorders, the judge makes an independent assessment. If necessary, the judge may also invite a psychologist to work with him to judge the psychological state of the perpetrator, and finally, combining the opinions of the two experts, the judge may synthesize other evidence, Due consideration should be given to the legal feelings of the society and the final confirmation of the criminal responsibility ability of the mentally handicapped in the legal norm; in the time standard, the judgment standard of "retrospective law" should be adopted. Classifying "behavior time" into "past tense", "time involved in case" and "appraisal time" in order to facilitate judgment, and considering comprehensively the influence of the mental state of the case related to the time of the case to its ability of responsibility; On the level standard, the judge can hypothesize the three states when judging that the actor is full criminal responsibility ability, no criminal responsibility ability or limited liability ability. Then the final conclusion is drawn according to the circumstances of the case and the situation of the perpetrator. In the content standard, the concrete content of the identification ability and the control ability should be grasped, and then the judgment should be made. Then, four specific criteria are applied to the case in order to consolidate their own stand, and then to further clarify its extended significance.
【學(xué)位授予單位】：四川師范大學(xué)
【學(xué)位級別】：碩士
【學(xué)位授予年份】：2017
【分類號】：D924

【參考文獻(xiàn)】

相關(guān)期刊論文 前10條

1 王岳;;反思精神障礙強(qiáng)制醫(yī)療的“危險性”原則[J];中國衛(wèi)生法制;2014年03期

2 魏彤;;簡論精神障礙者刑事責(zé)任能力的認(rèn)定——從波恩法院之刑事判決談起[J];刑事法評論;2013年02期

3 李學(xué)武;高北陵;胡峰;吳超;張華;關(guān)亞軍;賴武;李毅;王軼;吳冬凌;操小蘭;;辨認(rèn)和控制能力與責(zé)任能力司法精神鑒定差異的調(diào)查[J];法醫(yī)學(xué)雜志;2013年04期

4 郭華;;精神病司法鑒定若干法律問題研究[J];法學(xué)家;2012年02期

5 李曉郛;;以PTSD為例探討精神病人的刑事責(zé)任能力判斷[J];福建醫(yī)科大學(xué)學(xué)報(社會科學(xué)版);2011年03期

6 張愛艷;;“精神病”與刑事責(zé)任能力的判斷[J];政法論叢;2011年03期

7 張愛艷;;刑事責(zé)任能力本質(zhì)之新解[J];蘭州學(xué)刊;2011年05期

8 楊耀華;龍國民;羅海峰;;171例涉嫌暴力犯罪法醫(yī)精神病學(xué)鑒定分析[J];中國民康醫(yī)學(xué);2009年20期

9 林維;;精神障礙與刑事責(zé)任能力的判定[J];國家檢察官學(xué)院學(xué)報;2008年04期

10 何恬;;關(guān)于刑事責(zé)任能力評定大綱的建議稿[J];證據(jù)科學(xué);2007年Z1期

相關(guān)碩士學(xué)位論文 前4條

1 袁婷;吸毒人員刑事責(zé)任研究[D];華東政法大學(xué);2012年

2 張旭宏;精神障礙者刑事責(zé)任能力相關(guān)問題研究[D];山東大學(xué);2012年

3 王燕;精神障礙者刑事責(zé)任能力制度的比較研究[D];河南大學(xué);2011年

4 張永忠;司法精神醫(yī)學(xué)鑒定書的認(rèn)證[D];對外經(jīng)濟(jì)貿(mào)易大學(xué);2004年

，

本文編號：1921994