【摘要】：2013年10月10日是第十九個(gè)世界精神衛(wèi)生日。社會(huì)心理健康、精神疾病已經(jīng)成為當(dāng)前社會(huì)亟需解決的問題,在精神障礙者自殺率和他害率不斷攀升的形勢(shì)下,做一壁上觀顯然不是解決問題的辦法,在精神衛(wèi)生問題短時(shí)間內(nèi)無法解決的情形下,如何改善現(xiàn)狀,緩解精神障礙者實(shí)施他害行為和其人身危險(xiǎn)性已經(jīng)成為我們的當(dāng)務(wù)之急�？v觀國內(nèi)外強(qiáng)制醫(yī)療制度的長期發(fā)展過程,其也經(jīng)歷了從無到有,在摸索中前進(jìn)的過程。而在新刑事訴訟法頒布之前,我國對(duì)精神障礙者的強(qiáng)制醫(yī)療的法律規(guī)定和司法實(shí)踐都具有濃厚的“行政化”色彩,性質(zhì)界定不明、適用對(duì)象模糊、提起和決定主體不清以及正當(dāng)程序的缺失等多方面的問題,導(dǎo)致強(qiáng)制醫(yī)療措施在實(shí)際運(yùn)行時(shí)嚴(yán)重缺乏保障。2012年3月份,全國人大通過了刑事訴訟法修正案,將強(qiáng)制醫(yī)療程序以特別程序的形式納入其中,是我國刑事立法中的一次里程碑式的創(chuàng)舉。 本文以中日兩國精神病強(qiáng)制醫(yī)療制度的比較研究為著眼點(diǎn),對(duì)日本的立法和實(shí)踐的進(jìn)行了借鑒和分析,并詳細(xì)比較了兩國精神病強(qiáng)制醫(yī)療程序,包括了強(qiáng)制醫(yī)療程序的啟動(dòng)——精神醫(yī)學(xué)鑒定和司法判定程序、運(yùn)行——裁判、執(zhí)行以及救濟(jì)的整個(gè)訴訟程序。最后根據(jù)強(qiáng)制醫(yī)療程序的根本性質(zhì)、基本原則和基礎(chǔ)理論,探討我國的強(qiáng)制醫(yī)療程序應(yīng)當(dāng)完善之處。 第一,筆者認(rèn)為當(dāng)前強(qiáng)制醫(yī)療程序的適用對(duì)象范圍過窄,使得一些具有社會(huì)危害性的精神障礙者成為漏網(wǎng)之魚,限制了強(qiáng)制醫(yī)療程序發(fā)揮應(yīng)有的社會(huì)防衛(wèi)功能,因此,應(yīng)當(dāng)將限制刑事責(zé)任能力的精神障礙者和無受審能力的精神障礙者納入到強(qiáng)制醫(yī)療程序的適用對(duì)象范圍之內(nèi)。 第二,針對(duì)當(dāng)前法官在審理強(qiáng)制醫(yī)療程序案件時(shí),對(duì)被申請(qǐng)強(qiáng)制醫(yī)療人是否“有繼續(xù)危害社會(huì)可能”的認(rèn)定標(biāo)準(zhǔn)問題。筆者認(rèn)為,這個(gè)問題應(yīng)當(dāng)結(jié)合具體案件情況具體分析裁判。而判定標(biāo)準(zhǔn)主要有以下三類：一是被申請(qǐng)人的精神病的疾病類型；二是被申請(qǐng)人實(shí)施危害行為的起因、經(jīng)過；三是被申請(qǐng)人有無接受治療的條件。 第三,對(duì)精神障礙者接受強(qiáng)制醫(yī)療后的重返社會(huì)保障機(jī)制提出建設(shè)性意見。主要包括對(duì)精神障礙者痊愈后的后續(xù)心理矯正和回歸社會(huì)正常生活保障機(jī)制兩個(gè)方面。 第四,針對(duì)法官如何對(duì)鑒定結(jié)論作出客觀、正確判定提出了意見,首先,將鑒定人定位為法官審理案件的輔助人,彌補(bǔ)某些法官在專業(yè)領(lǐng)域的知事欠缺；其次,賦予當(dāng)時(shí)人啟動(dòng)精神病鑒定的權(quán)利,以保障當(dāng)事人的合法權(quán)利,防止公權(quán)力濫用。 本文通過理論——對(duì)比——完善的認(rèn)識(shí)和論述過程,通過借鑒和對(duì)比日本強(qiáng)制醫(yī)療程序的設(shè)置理論和實(shí)踐,以及對(duì)我國現(xiàn)實(shí)國情的分析,希望能從理論和實(shí)踐兩個(gè)方面完善我國的精神病強(qiáng)制醫(yī)療程序。
[Abstract]:October 10, 2013 is the nineteenth World Mental Health Day. Social mental health and mental illness have become a problem that needs to be solved in the current society. Under the situation that the suicide rate and other harm rate of mentally handicapped people are constantly rising, it is obviously not the solution to solve the problem by taking a wall view. Under the situation that the mental health problem can not be solved in a short time, how to improve the present situation and alleviate the harm behavior and personal danger of the mentally handicapped has become our urgent task. Throughout the long-term development process of compulsory medical system at home and abroad, it has also experienced the process of moving forward from scratch to existence. Before the promulgation of the new Code of Criminal procedure, the legal provisions and judicial practice of compulsory medical treatment for mentally handicapped people in our country have a strong "administrative" color, the nature of the definition is unclear, the object of application is vague. The introduction and determination of unclear subjects and the lack of due process have led to a serious lack of safeguards for compulsory medical measures in practice. In March 2012, the National people's Congress adopted an amendment to the Criminal procedure Law. It is a milestone in Chinese criminal legislation to include compulsory medical procedure in the form of special procedure. Based on the comparative study of compulsory psychiatric care system between China and Japan, this paper makes a reference and analysis of the legislation and practice of Japan, and makes a detailed comparison of the compulsory psychiatric medical procedures between the two countries. It includes the initiation of compulsory medical procedure-the procedure of psychiatric identification and judicial judgment, the whole procedure of running-adjudication, execution and relief. Finally, according to the basic nature, basic principle and basic theory of compulsory medical procedure, this paper probes into the perfection of compulsory medical procedure in our country. First, the author thinks that the scope of application of the current compulsory medical procedure is too narrow, which makes some mentally handicapped people with social harmfulness become the fish of the net, which limits the compulsory medical procedure to play its due social defense function. Persons with mental disorders who limit their ability to be criminally responsible and those who have no capacity to stand trial should be included in the scope of application of compulsory medical procedures. Second, to judge in the trial of compulsory medical procedure cases, the application for compulsory medical treatment whether "continue to harm the society may" determine the standard. The author believes that this problem should be combined with the specific case specific analysis of the referee. The criteria are as follows: the first is the disease type of mental illness of the respondent; the second is the cause of the harmful behavior of the respondent; the third is whether the defendant has the condition of receiving treatment. Third, to provide constructive advice on the reintegration mechanism after compulsory medical treatment. It mainly includes two aspects: psychological correction after recovery and social return to normal life mechanism. Fourth, in view of how the judge makes the objective judgment to the appraisal conclusion, has put forward the opinion, first, the expert judge will be positioned as the judge hearing the case auxiliary person, makes up some judges in the specialized domain governor insufficiency; Secondly, people were given the right to initiate psychiatric examination in order to protect the legal rights of the parties and prevent abuse of public power. This article through the theory-contrast-perfect understanding and the elaboration process, through uses for reference and contrasts the Japanese compulsory medical procedure establishment theory and the practice, as well as to our country reality situation analysis, The author hopes to perfect the compulsory medical procedure of mental illness in our country from two aspects: theory and practice.
【學(xué)位授予單位】：浙江工業(yè)大學(xué)
【學(xué)位級(jí)別】：碩士
【學(xué)位授予年份】：2014
【分類號(hào)】：D925.2

【參考文獻(xiàn)】

相關(guān)期刊論文 前8條

1 王偉;精神病人強(qiáng)制醫(yī)療制度研究[J];法律與醫(yī)學(xué)雜志;2003年03期

2 黃麗勤;;司法精神病鑒定若干問題研究[J];法學(xué)評(píng)論;2010年05期

3 楊濤;;正當(dāng)程序視角下精神病鑒定體制的構(gòu)建[J];法治論壇;2007年02期

4 陳衛(wèi)東;柴煜峰;;精神障礙患者強(qiáng)制醫(yī)療的性質(zhì)界定及程序解構(gòu)[J];安徽大學(xué)學(xué)報(bào)(哲學(xué)社會(huì)科學(xué)版);2013年01期

5 鶴見隆彥;;精神障礙者危險(xiǎn)行為(犯罪行為)的預(yù)防對(duì)策——醫(yī)療觀察制度下心神喪失者的處遇[J];犯罪學(xué)論叢;2008年00期

6 卞建林;田心則;;論刑事訴訟中權(quán)力的和諧化[J];人民檢察;2008年04期

7 周國君;李娜玲;;試論我國刑事強(qiáng)制醫(yī)療措施的司法化[J];山東警察學(xué)院學(xué)報(bào);2009年06期

8 樊崇義,朱擁政;以正當(dāng)程序理念構(gòu)建中國的刑事偵查制度[J];鐵道警官高等專科學(xué)校學(xué)報(bào);2004年02期

，

本文編號(hào)：2296704