Research On The Assessment Of Criminal Responsibility In Mentally Disordered Offenders

This paper studies criminal responsibility, one of the most important and mostwidely used assessments in the field of forensic psychiatric assessment. Acomprehensive and systematic study has been made on the current status, juristictheory, medical basis, technical principles, practice issues and evidence verification aswell as other matters in relation to criminal responsibility evaluation by clinicalpractices, clinical observation, literature search, interdisciplinary research and othermethods.In the introductory paragraph, I summarized and abstracted major issues existingin the field of forensic psychiatric assessment in China based on over ten years ofprofessional practice experience by means of literature review and in-depth analysisof three typical cases which caused extensive social concerns. I believe that there arethree major issues in foregoing assessment, including difficulties in “initiation”,“implementation” and “verification”. In relevant chapters in the text, I provided theanalysis of causes of difficulties abovementioned from multiple angles and proposedthe corresponding countermeasures. The second and third sections of introductionintroduce the current situation of research in this field and the methods applied in thisresearch. This is an integrated interdisciplinary research oriented by the key issuesexisting in activities of criminal responsibility assessment. And this paper focuses onthe difficulties in “implementation” and gives a comprehensive study from the designof qualification management system, technical principles, practice standards,standardization, thematic analysis and improvement of examination skills, etc. As for the juristic theory in the contexts of criminal responsibility evaluation, Imade a comprehensive analysis on relevant legal concepts, designation selections,legal theory, legal standards and legal regulations, and put forward my own point ofview. I think that, in the field of forensic assessment, we should use “CriminalResponsibility” rather than the word “Responsibility” for short to avoid newconfusion in theories and concepts as well as mess and disorder in practices. On thenature and location of the criminal responsibility in the system of criminal law theory,I believe that the criminal responsibility should return to the issue of capacity of crimeof a behavior subject, and should be strictly distinguished from the capacity to serve asentence. The capacity to serve a sentence is a further consideration only if a suspector examinee has criminal responsibility and has been sentenced to bear the criminalresponsibility in accordance with the law. The competence to stand trial is adynamical variable. As long as the illness state is improved to meet the conditions ofcognitive ability and the ability to receive to criminal rehabilitation, appropriatecriminal punishments can be implemented in a timely manner. The criminalresponsibility evaluation consideration is the mental status of an examinee or suspectat the time of offense, theoretically, it is constant. It is a dynamic invariable to aparticular object in a specific case. However, it is entirely changeable to the sameexaminee with change of his/her mental health status for criminal responsibility indifferent cases. Even if, in the extreme case, the same examinee or suspect involvesthe same type of case in different time, the changes in illness condition will lead tochanges in the state of criminal responsibility. This is not controversial in theory, andshould be strictly in accordance with legal standards in the practice. If we considerthis from a perspective out of the nature of criminal responsibility and the rules ofhuman mentality, such expert opinion may be incredible, even ridiculous.In China, the current legislation for criminal responsibility is based on a mixedmodel combining medical and psychological elements. This is basically compatiblewith the national conditions and the actual needs of society. Now, the argument lies inthe definition of “mental patient” and “mental illness” at the limited developmentlevel of psychological science. We can hardly reach an absolute consensus at present.It will cause contradictions and confusion in the practices of further theoretical studiesand assessments in this field. I developed a three-element theory which comprises medical, psychological and casual elements based on the existing two-element theorythrough analysis of the legislative text of criminal responsibility in Chinese criminallaw and practices of forensic assessment.For the re-grading of criminal responsibility, I support the further quantitativegrading of criminal responsibility. More specific grading is important to the accuratesentencing in contexts of criminal actions. But how to conduct a scientific and unifiedquantization to assessment skills requires further research.In my opinion, the criminal responsibility evaluation is an important part in thecriminal judicial process, and the evaluation results have an important influence onthe decision of criminal case. The evaluation activities should be subject to ourcurrent criminal judicial principles and norms of criminal law theory, the forensicexaminers should also analyze and solve problems relating to assessment under theguidance of relevant principles of criminal law and criminal law theory. I cited theanalysis of drug-induced mental disorders, withdrawal-induced mental disorderrelapse and other problems using the principle of legality, presumption of innocence,theory of action libera in cause and theory of probability of expectation, and proposedassessment countermeasures. I analyzed the qualification management and initiationprocedure of criminal responsibility examiners starting with the knowledge andcapabilities necessary to the implementation of the evaluation of mental status at thetime of offense and criminal responsibility, and suggested improving the examinereducation system from professional education, continuing education and other aspects.As for the assessment initiation procedure, I put forward a preliminary identificationscale for suspected mental disorders.The second chapter of this paper describes basic medical problems in relation tocriminal responsibility evaluation, including correlative basic medical concepts, suchas mental disorders, mental diseases and mental illness, psychiatry andpsychopathology, and known causes and pathological mechanisms of mental disorders.In the contexts of criminal responsibility evaluation in China, the adoption ofdiagnostic criteria for mental disorders is not standardized. I think we shouldgradually apply the international standard ICD-10as the main criteria with the tradestandard CCMD-3formulated by the Chinese Society of Psychiatry (SCP) as an important supplement. We should do our best to realize normalized and standardizedmedical diagnosis in criminal responsibility assessment. My main point is to constructthe forensic psychopathology. I described the concepts and research contents offorensic psychopathology, made a preliminary summary of pathological andpsychological mechanisms on how mental disorders cause impairment of theexaminee’s capabilities to cognize and control his/her alleged offense. This chapteralso contains a thematic analysis on the basis of the mechanism of dangerousbehaviors of patients suffering depression.The third chapter of this paper presents the preliminary research of the principlesof technical assessment of criminal responsibility for people with mental disability aswell as related technologies and methods. I suggest that the forensic assessment ofmental status and criminal responsibility for people with mental disability shouldfollow the general principles of forensic assessment and obey the special requirementsand ethical guidelines of mental examination. This chapter also reviews typicalstandardized instruments for criminal responsibility assessment all over the world. Ibelieve that good standardized instruments can assist in assessment, but no one can beregarded as a substitute for the role of experts. Examiners are irreplaceable foridentifying the mental status at the time of offense and evaluating criminalresponsibility. As to assessment skills, this chapter focuses on the entrusted reviewprocess of cases in the contexts of criminal responsibility assessment, and comes outwith eight conditions that are not qualified for assessment. At the end of this chapter, Isorted and summarized the common types of opinions on the mental status at the timeof offense and criminal responsibility, and provided a clear and simple table forreference during practices.The fourth chapter provides a comprehensive analysis of lots of difficultiesexisting in the practices of criminal responsibility evaluation from cross research oflaw and medicine, and provides appropriate countermeasures, for instance, makinglegislative suggestions for criminal responsibility evaluation for people withdrug-induced mental disorders. On difficulties in evaluation for a case in which a lotof people get injured, I suggest choosing a comprehensive evaluation or individualevaluation according to the examinee’s illness state and other medical elements,interval of injurious behavior and psychological mechanism of occurrence as well as the needs of judicial authorities. When an individual evaluation is used, determinewhich is to be evaluated, the consensus or the different expert opinions.The fifth chapter involves the analysis of difficulties in “Review”. First, I clarifiedthe contents of criminal responsibility evaluation opinion. I think the examiner’sevaluating activities on the examinee are mainly in connection with the examinee’smental status at the time of offense and his/her capabilities to cognize and control thealleged offense. The contents of evaluation are highly time-dependent, relevant andspecific, but no abstract or lifelong. The opinions are meaningful only to the case inquestion, and have no direct significance to other events (cases) happening before orafter the specific case. I also gave professional recommendations on how to enhancereviews of scientific evidence like criminal responsibility evaluation opinions,including enhancing review awareness, improving review approaches and contents.Also, I put forward my own views on how forensic examiners apply differentopinions.The sixth chapter is a conclusion of main points of this paper. It offers thelimitations of this study and the research direction in future. I think, in the field of incriminal responsibility evaluation, we should make further study of advancedtechnologies and systems applied in Britain, the United States, Japan, Germany andother countries in which the psychiatry and law has been well developed, translate andintroduce more classic literature and technical specifications, and increaseinternational academic exchanges with the above-mentioned countries to learn theiradvanced concepts, experience and technologies. In addition, based on thecharacteristics of criminal capacity evaluation activities, it is necessary to applymedicine, psychiatry, philosophy, criminal psychology, science of criminal laws,science of procedural laws, science of evidence, science of forensic assessment,behavioral science and the theories and technologies of other related disciplines to theresearch and application of forensic criminal responsibility assessment, and encouragescholars to carry out interdisciplinary research.