刑事司法中精神病辩护案实证研究

Empirical Study of Insanity Defense in Criminal Justice

实证研究显示,以患有精神病为辩护理由的案件在司法实务中的比例并不高,且多集中于暴力性犯罪;法官对此类辩护核实率较低,且不必然与最终的刑事责任能力判断完全一致,而对于有争议的鉴定意见,则遵循形式性与实质性结合的判断模式;此类辩护案中存在三大悖论——案件占比低与社会关注度高之间的不对称、被告方积极抗辩却又消极否认、鉴定意见的裁量性与鉴定人员的低出庭率。本文由此提出需进一步研究的问题——鉴定启动权的分散、刑事责任能力判断的分离以及互联网背景下作证方式的优化等。

The empirical study shows that,the proportion of cases defended by mental illness is not high in judi⁃cial practice,and most of them are violent crimes.The judge has a low verification rate for this kind of defense,and it is not necessarily consistent with the final judgment of criminal responsibility capacity,but for the disputed expert opinion,it follows the judgment mode of combining form and substance.There are three major paradoxes in this kind of defense cases:the asymmetry between low proportion of cases and high social attention,the defendant's active de⁃fense but negative denial,high discretion of judges and low court appearance rate.Thus this paper puts forward some problems that need further study,such as the decentralization of the initiation power of appraisal,the separation of the judgment of criminal responsibility and the optimization of the way of testifying under the background of Internet.