精神病性疾患及解離性身分疾患行為之有責性認定

Criminal Liability of Behaviors of Individuals with Psychotic Disorders or Dissociative Identity Disorder

黃柏翔(Po-Hsiang Huang)

指導教授 ： 黃榮堅

國立臺灣大學/法律學院/法律學研究所/碩士(2008年)

https://doi.org/10.6342/NTU.2008.01733

摘要

關於精神疾患患者所惹起的刑事法律議題評價，對於我國實務而言向來棘手，雖有精神鑑定制度以資運用，但於實踐上仍然常有法院過度倚賴鑑定意見以至於實質判斷權限移轉，或是欠缺實質理由而武斷拒卻鑑定意見等情形發生，致使精神疾患行為人的個體性遭到抹殺，而懲罰正當性亦隨之產生疑慮。
一旦這些問題沒有被根本地解決，那麼不僅是長久以來在實務中佔有重要地位的精神病性疾患，其行為之法律評價難有妥適結論，面對解離性身分疾患（亦被稱作多重人格疾患）這類對於我國實務近乎全然陌生的精神疾患，判斷的恣意性更是無法避免。
本文認為困境的出口在於「看見他者」的基本態度，司法工作者須以此一態度激起其接近他者之動機，並進而嘗試理解他者；唯當精神疾患的存在樣貌確實被看見時，法律評價才可能合於我們所堅信的各種信念。
基於這樣的立場，本文引介精神病性疾患與解離性身分疾患之診斷準則、特徵及其相關法律論述，雖非鉅細靡遺，但應堪供作處理該等議題時的參考。
就結論而言，精神病性疾患基於其症狀之多樣性與陣發性，其刑事責任認定應跳脫一般無責任論等劃一處理模式的窠臼，並個案式地考量行為人行為時的症狀輕重以及該等症狀對其身心狀態之影響為何之後，方能做成法律評價結論。至於解離性身分疾患，不論對於替代人格之定性為何，本文認為修正之統一理論所提操作標準在任何情況下皆能加以貫徹，亦即唯有行為人之所有人格皆合於有罪判決之法律要件時，刑罰之施加始具正當性可言。

關鍵字

精神分裂 ； 多重人格 ； 解離 ； 精神疾患 ； 自由意志 ； 罪責

並列摘要

Criminal law issues regarding individuals with mental disorders have always been hard for legal practices in Taiwan to tackle. Although forensic psychiatric evaluations can be performed to provide expert input, problems still prevail in actual practice. Courts, for instance, often either depend excessively on evaluation opinions and render the exercise of judicial discretion to psychiatric evaluators, or arbitrarily negate evaluation opinions without substantial reasons. The individualities of defendants with mental illness, therefore, are overlooked. This leads to concerns about justification of punishment.
As long as these problems remain unsolved, it is difficult for us to reach appropriate judgments about behaviors committed by individuals with psychotic disorders (even this kind of mental disorder plays an important role in real practices). Furthermore, when it comes to Dissociative Identity Disorder (also known as Multiple Personality Disorder), which is still unfamiliar to our courts, judicial decisions will inevitably become even more arbitrary and capricious.
This thesis holds that the attitude of “Seeing Others” is the key solution to these predicaments. Judicial personnel should motivate themselves to approach “others” and try to understand “others” with this attitude. Only when the existences and real situations of individuals with mental disorders are recognized can legal judgments conform to our beliefs.
In view of the aforesaid position, this thesis introduces diagnostic criteria, features, and related legal discourses of Psychotic Disorders and Dissociative Identity Disorder. Although not elucidated in detail, they might still serve as reference materials while we are dealing with issues involving the disorders.
In conclusion, based on the variety and complexity of psychotic symptoms, judgments about criminal liability of individuals with psychotic disorders should avoid routinely indulging in generalizations and stereotypes── like General Non-responsibility Theory. Defendants’ symptoms and their effects on defendants’ mental state and physical condition at the time of the crime should be considered before judicial decisions are made. As to defendants with Dissociative Identity Disorder, no matter how we view alters, the criteria proposed by Modified Unified Theory should be able to apply to all circumstances. Thus, if and only if all alters meet the legal requisites necessary to be found guilty, the justification for punishment can finally be confirmed.

並列關鍵字

schizophrenia ； multiple personality ； dissociative symptoms ； mental disorder ； freewilll ； criminal liability

參考文獻

3、尤根•哈伯瑪斯，＜自由與決定論＞，周明泉譯，《哲學與文化》，第377卷，第10期，台北：五南，2005年。

3、李青筠，《道德性與罪責──對尼采道德系譜學的一種解讀》，國立台灣大學法律學研究所碩士論文，2005年。

6、吳文正，《從精神鑑定探討被告心神喪失抗辯之主張》，私立東吳大學法律學研究所碩士論文，1996年。

3、林憲，＜司法精神醫學之展望＞，《台灣醫學》，第2卷，第2期，台北：中華民國精神醫學會，1998年。

7、張麗卿，＜精神鑑定的問題與挑戰＞，《東海大學法學研究》，20期，台中：東海大學，2004年，可線上瀏覽於：http://tunghai.lawbank.com.tw/20/04.pdf。