法官心证与精神病鉴定及强制医疗关系论

Analysis of the Judge's Mental Impression on the Mental Diseases Identification and the Compulsory Medical Treatment

纵向构造意义上的强制医疗程序应当分为"前置的司法精神病鉴定程序"和"强制医疗决定程序"两个阶段,后者在2012年刑事诉讼法中得以全新创设,鉴定启动权重新配置的改革则停滞不前。从"制度层面、理论演进层面、人身危险性司法判断和程序法角度"四个维度对新创设的强制医疗决定程序进行实证分析,学界将其作为保安处分定位的性质属于误判,该程序尚不具备程序法意义上保安处分的功能和价值,而是一个专门针对精神病人、以安置和保障为目的的医疗确认程序。法官心证能力在客观上型构了整个强制医疗纵向构造,可以将其概括为"法官心证——司法精神病鉴定启动模式"和"法官心证——强制医疗决定程序类型"因果关系律。根据该归纳,可以进一步演绎推理出三种代表不同心证水平的鉴定启动模式亚型。

The judicial procedure of involuntary medical treatment in the longitudinal structure should be divided into two phases： The prepositive identification procedure that examines the mental health condition of the possible patient,and the decision procedure of involuntary medical treatment. The decision procedure has been provided by Criminal Procedure Law of the People＇s Republic of China（ 2012 Amendment）,while the progress made in the resetting of the right to start the identification procedure is considered quite slow. From the aspect of the existing law,the aspect of the evolution of the relating theories,the aspect of the judicial judgment in whether the possible patient may be dangerous to personal safety,as well as the aspect of procedure law,we based our research on empirical analysis. In this process,we discovered that the current involuntary treatment decision procedure possesses is neither the function nor the value similar to restriction order. As a matter of fact,it is a confirmation procedure aiming at the settlement and the treatment of mental patient.Therefore,we disagree to consider it as measure similar to restriction order. Judge＇s ability to evaluate evidence has objectively dominated the operation of judicial procedure for the involuntary medical treatment,which we concluded as ＂the causality between the free evaluation of evidence and the initiation pattern of mental patient＇s judicial identification procedure＂,and ＂the causality between the free evaluation of evidence and the type of involuntary medical treatment＇s decision procedure＂. Based on this conclusion,we have further inferred3 types of initiation pattern under different abilities to evaluate evidence.