透過您的圖書館登入
IP:54.208.238.160
  • 期刊
  • OpenAccess

精神鑑定結論與法院裁判認定間不一致現象之分析(第一報):犯行時之精神狀態

Analysis of Discordance between Conclusions of Forensic Psychiatric Evaluation and Court Decisions (I): Mental Status at the Time of Offense

摘要


Objective: To explore the relationship between conclusions of forensic psychiatric evaluation on ”mental status at the time of offense (MSO)” and their acceptance by the courts. Methods: Forensic psychiatric evaluation reports and corresponding court decisions of all criminal cases referred to Taipei City Psychiatric Center for MSO evaluation after April 23, 1981 for which the investigation or trial had been completed prior to September 1, 2003 were included. Concordance between each category of MSO conclusion and the court decision was analyzed. Results: The sample consisted of 428 MSO conclusions from 419 evaluees/evaluations. Overall concordance was 93.9% (402/428). Conclusions of ”diminished responsibility” reached the highest concordance (99.3%) and were followed by those of ”full responsibility” (95.9%). Conclusions of ”insanity” were least frequently accepted (83.6%). Differences between the concordance rate for each conclusion were significant (p<0.001). Excluding cases referred from the District Attorneys' Office, concordance for conclusions of ”diminished responsibility” remained the highest (99.3%), followed by those for ”full responsibility” (95.8%) and ”insanity” conclusions (82.1/). Differences between the concordance rate for each conclusion remained significant (p<0.001). Conclusion: Overall, the concordance between MSO conclusions and court decisions is high in Taiwan. Concordance for each category of conclusion, however, was significantly different. Mutual untranslatability between psychiatric-psychological and legal concepts, and the courts' tendency to preserve full adjudicative power over unlawful behaviors may account for these differences. The finding that standards applied by the courts on the issue of insanity varied and that qualified evaluators could draw different MSO conclusions from the same case, both illustrated by case studies, warrant re-examination. Since the Criminal Code has recently been revised, evaluators must familiarize themselves with, and reach consensus among themselves on the key concepts of the new insanity defense standards.

並列摘要


Objective: To explore the relationship between conclusions of forensic psychiatric evaluation on ”mental status at the time of offense (MSO)” and their acceptance by the courts. Methods: Forensic psychiatric evaluation reports and corresponding court decisions of all criminal cases referred to Taipei City Psychiatric Center for MSO evaluation after April 23, 1981 for which the investigation or trial had been completed prior to September 1, 2003 were included. Concordance between each category of MSO conclusion and the court decision was analyzed. Results: The sample consisted of 428 MSO conclusions from 419 evaluees/evaluations. Overall concordance was 93.9% (402/428). Conclusions of ”diminished responsibility” reached the highest concordance (99.3%) and were followed by those of ”full responsibility” (95.9%). Conclusions of ”insanity” were least frequently accepted (83.6%). Differences between the concordance rate for each conclusion were significant (p<0.001). Excluding cases referred from the District Attorneys' Office, concordance for conclusions of ”diminished responsibility” remained the highest (99.3%), followed by those for ”full responsibility” (95.8%) and ”insanity” conclusions (82.1/). Differences between the concordance rate for each conclusion remained significant (p<0.001). Conclusion: Overall, the concordance between MSO conclusions and court decisions is high in Taiwan. Concordance for each category of conclusion, however, was significantly different. Mutual untranslatability between psychiatric-psychological and legal concepts, and the courts' tendency to preserve full adjudicative power over unlawful behaviors may account for these differences. The finding that standards applied by the courts on the issue of insanity varied and that qualified evaluators could draw different MSO conclusions from the same case, both illustrated by case studies, warrant re-examination. Since the Criminal Code has recently been revised, evaluators must familiarize themselves with, and reach consensus among themselves on the key concepts of the new insanity defense standards.

參考文獻


Daniel AE,Harris PW(1981).Female offenders referred for pre-trial psychiatric evaluation.Bull Am Acad Psychiatry Law.9,40-47.
Fukunaga KK,Pasewark RA,Hawkins M,Gudeman H(1981).Insanity plea: interexaminer agreement and concordance of psychiatric opinion and court verdict.Law Hum Behav.5,325-328.
Kuo SH(1986).Forensic psychiatry in Taiwan.Int J Law Psychiatry.6,457-472.
Rogers R,Cavanaugh JL,Seman W,Harris M(1984).Legal outcome and clinical findings: a study of insanity evaluations.Bull Am Acad Psychiatry Law.12,75-83.
中華民國精神醫學會司法精神醫學學術分組(1996)。刑責能力判斷準則。司法精神醫學。4,5-11。

被引用紀錄


顧玉玲(2010)。自由的條件:從越傭殺人案看台灣家務移工的處境〔碩士論文,國立交通大學〕。華藝線上圖書館。https://doi.org/10.6842%2fNCTU.2010.00871
林伯樺(2008)。論精神障礙與心智缺陷不法行為責任問題—以人格疾患為中心〔碩士論文,國立臺灣大學〕。華藝線上圖書館。https://doi.org/10.6342%2fNTU.2008.00161
簡至鴻(2009)。刑事責任能力判斷之本質-刑法解釋學與精神醫學之交錯〔碩士論文,國立臺北大學〕。華藝線上圖書館。https://www.airitilibrary.com/Article/Detail?DocID=U0023-2207200912120500
黃耀進(2012)。刑事精神鑑定證據力之探討—決定法官採納因素之分析(以板橋地方法院為例)〔碩士論文,國立臺北大學〕。華藝線上圖書館。https://www.airitilibrary.com/Article/Detail?DocID=U0023-1307201201231700
鍾金錦(2015)。從精神疾病論責任能力與刑事制裁效果〔碩士論文,國立中正大學〕。華藝線上圖書館。https://www.airitilibrary.com/Article/Detail?DocID=U0033-2110201614035099

延伸閱讀