本文選題：司法精神病鑒定 + 啟動(dòng)機(jī)制　； 參考：《海南大學(xué)》2017年碩士論文

【摘要】：隨著經(jīng)濟(jì)的發(fā)展和法律體系的不斷完善,依法治國(guó)的理念逐漸深入人心。社會(huì)主義法治國(guó)家在建設(shè)的道路上,刑事司法是法治建設(shè)的重要組成部分,刑事審判的公正合理是刑事司法的應(yīng)有之義。2012年刑事訴訟法增設(shè)了強(qiáng)制醫(yī)療特別程序,從而解決了其在程序?qū)用娴牧⒎ㄈ毕輪?wèn)題。該程序規(guī)定了強(qiáng)制醫(yī)療的適用條件、強(qiáng)制醫(yī)療的法院決定權(quán)、程序啟動(dòng)的階段、被申請(qǐng)人的代理與法律援助權(quán)利、救濟(jì)途徑和事后評(píng)估監(jiān)督程序等方面,其確立的法官保留原則或者司法審查原則無(wú)疑是其最大的進(jìn)步之處。我國(guó)強(qiáng)制醫(yī)療的核心問(wèn)題是司法精神病鑒定,而司法精神病鑒定啟動(dòng)機(jī)制是我國(guó)司法精神病鑒定的起點(diǎn),也是其重要組成部分。長(zhǎng)期以來(lái),由于缺少相關(guān)法律規(guī)范,司法精神病鑒定啟動(dòng)機(jī)制一直缺乏系統(tǒng)的制度性支撐。然而,犯罪嫌疑人是否需要承擔(dān)刑事責(zé)任與我國(guó)司法精神病鑒定的鑒定意見(jiàn)是緊密聯(lián)系在一起的,其對(duì)刑事審判而言具有重大意義。在涉及司法精神病鑒定啟動(dòng)機(jī)制問(wèn)題上,應(yīng)從啟動(dòng)條件,啟動(dòng)主體,啟動(dòng)程序,救濟(jì)途徑等方面進(jìn)行探討。隨著近年來(lái)法治的發(fā)展,在司法精神病鑒定過(guò)程中鑒定機(jī)構(gòu)、鑒定人員的問(wèn)題也相繼出現(xiàn);相關(guān)規(guī)章制度由于出臺(tái)的年份較久且沒(méi)有經(jīng)過(guò)修正,對(duì)現(xiàn)實(shí)情況匹配程度也逐漸減弱;法律條文規(guī)定較為寬泛,對(duì)當(dāng)事人法律援助救濟(jì)不夠等問(wèn)題頻繁出現(xiàn),對(duì)社會(huì)和諧產(chǎn)生嚴(yán)重影響�；诖�,本文通過(guò)對(duì)我國(guó)司法精神病鑒定啟動(dòng)機(jī)制的立法與實(shí)踐兩個(gè)層面的現(xiàn)狀進(jìn)行考察,再通過(guò)司法精神病鑒定域外考察比較所得出的借鑒合理成分,分析出當(dāng)前我國(guó)司法精神病鑒定啟動(dòng)機(jī)制困境,模糊不清的啟動(dòng)條件、啟動(dòng)主體絕對(duì)化、被告方無(wú)啟動(dòng)權(quán)、其他程序參與人無(wú)啟動(dòng)權(quán)等方面問(wèn)題�？芍�,我國(guó)尚未建立起具有對(duì)抗性的司法精神病鑒定啟動(dòng)機(jī)制。為了走出司法精神病鑒定啟動(dòng)機(jī)制的困境,筆者試圖對(duì)我國(guó)司法精神病鑒定制度的完善提出些許建議:其一:從構(gòu)建刑事司法精神病鑒定啟動(dòng)條件上,分別從初次鑒定,重新鑒定,補(bǔ)充鑒定,強(qiáng)制鑒定這四個(gè)方面在啟動(dòng)條件的構(gòu)建上進(jìn)行論述。其二:從完善司法精神病鑒定啟動(dòng)主體上,分別從控辯雙方啟動(dòng)主體權(quán)力分配,不同案件類型啟動(dòng)權(quán)分配,這兩個(gè)方面進(jìn)行展開(kāi)。其三:完善司法精神病監(jiān)督機(jī)制。其四:完善救濟(jì)途徑。由此,通過(guò)完善相關(guān)法律規(guī)定和配套措施制度來(lái)全面規(guī)范司法精神病鑒定啟動(dòng)程序,試圖賦予當(dāng)事人雙方平等的刑事司法精神病鑒定申請(qǐng)權(quán)和救濟(jì)權(quán),促進(jìn)司法精神病鑒定程序走上規(guī)范化、法治化之路。
[Abstract]:With the development of economy and the improvement of the legal system, the idea of governing the country by law has gradually taken root in the hearts of the people. In the course of building a socialist country ruled by law, criminal justice is an important part of the construction of the rule of law, and the fairness and reasonableness of criminal trial is the proper meaning of criminal justice. In 2012, a special procedure for compulsory medical treatment was added to the Criminal procedure Law. In order to solve its procedural level of legislative defects. The procedure stipulates the applicable conditions of compulsory medical treatment, the court decision of compulsory medical treatment, the stage of initiation of the procedure, the rights of the respondent's agent and legal aid, the way of relief and the supervision procedure of ex post evaluation, etc. The principle of the retention of judges or the principle of judicial review is undoubtedly its greatest progress. The core problem of compulsory medical treatment in China is judicial psychiatric identification, and the starting mechanism of forensic psychiatric identification is the starting point and an important part of it. For a long time, due to the lack of relevant legal norms, the initiation mechanism of forensic psychiatric examination has been lack of systematic institutional support. However, whether the criminal suspect should bear criminal responsibility or not is closely related to the opinion of forensic psychiatry in our country, which is of great significance to the criminal trial. The starting mechanism of forensic psychiatric examination should be discussed from the aspects of starting condition, starting subject, starting procedure, relief way and so on. With the development of the rule of law in recent years, in the process of forensic psychiatric appraisal, the problems of expert personnel also appeared one after another; the relevant rules and regulations have been issued for a long time and have not been amended. The matching degree of the actual situation is also gradually weakened; the provisions of the law are relatively broad, the legal aid to the parties is not enough and other problems occur frequently, which has a serious impact on social harmony. Based on this, this paper investigates the current situation of the legislation and practice of the initiation mechanism of forensic psychiatry in China, and draws on the reasonable elements from the comparison of the overseas investigation of judicial psychiatric expertise. The problems such as the dilemma of the starting mechanism of forensic psychiatry in our country, the fuzzy starting conditions, the absolute starting-up of the subject, the lack of the defendant's right to start, and the other program participants' lack of the right to start are analyzed. It is known that China has not yet established an adversarial mechanism for the initiation of forensic psychiatry. In order to get out of the dilemma of the initiation mechanism of forensic psychiatric expertise, the author tries to put forward some suggestions on the perfection of the forensic psychiatric expertise system in China: first, from the construction of the starting conditions of criminal judicial psychiatric expertise, respectively, from the initial identification, Re-identification, supplementary identification, mandatory identification of the four aspects of the construction of starting conditions are discussed. Secondly, from perfecting the starting subject of forensic psychiatry, starting the power distribution between the prosecution and the defense, and the distribution of the right to start the different cases, the two aspects are carried out. Third, perfect the supervision mechanism of judicial psychosis. Fourth, perfect the relief way. As a result, by perfecting the relevant legal provisions and supporting measures to comprehensively standardize the initiation procedure of forensic psychiatric examination, the author tries to give both parties equal rights of application and relief for criminal judicial psychiatric examination. To promote the forensic psychiatric identification procedures on the road to standardization, rule of law.
【學(xué)位授予單位】：海南大學(xué)
【學(xué)位級(jí)別】：碩士
【學(xué)位授予年份】：2017
【分類號(hào)】：D919.3

【參考文獻(xiàn)】

相關(guān)期刊論文 前10條

1 孫皓;;論刑事訴訟中精神病問(wèn)題的證明責(zé)任分配[J];法學(xué)雜志;2017年01期

2 宋遠(yuǎn)升;;“定病”與“定罪”:精神病鑒定專家對(duì)刑事法官裁判權(quán)的雙重挑戰(zhàn)[J];法學(xué)論壇;2017年01期

3 汪潔;;關(guān)于自媒體傳播的公共性解讀[J];新聞研究導(dǎo)刊;2015年15期

4 張澤濤;崔凱;;刑事特別程序亟需厘清三個(gè)基本問(wèn)題[J];江蘇行政學(xué)院學(xué)報(bào);2013年06期

5 吳仕春;;強(qiáng)制醫(yī)療程序精神病鑒定意見(jiàn)認(rèn)證障礙分析[J];河北法學(xué);2013年09期

6 秦宗文;;刑事強(qiáng)制醫(yī)療程序研究[J];華東政法大學(xué)學(xué)報(bào);2012年05期

7 汪建成;;論強(qiáng)制醫(yī)療程序的立法構(gòu)建和司法完善[J];中國(guó)刑事法雜志;2012年04期

8 陳衛(wèi)東;程雷;;司法精神病鑒定基本問(wèn)題研究[J];法學(xué)研究;2012年01期

9 時(shí)延安;;刑事訴訟法修改的實(shí)體法之維——以刑法為視角對(duì)《刑事訴訟法修正案(草案)》增設(shè)三種特別程序的研析[J];中國(guó)刑事法雜志;2012年01期

10 陳衛(wèi)東;;構(gòu)建中國(guó)特色刑事特別程序[J];中國(guó)法學(xué);2011年06期

相關(guān)碩士學(xué)位論文 前2條

1 孫璐;精神障礙患者強(qiáng)制醫(yī)療程序解構(gòu)[D];安徽大學(xué);2013年

2 鐘鳴;司法精神病鑒定制度研究[D];西南政法大學(xué);2012年

，

本文編號(hào)：1922715