主管：中华人民共和国司法部
主办：司法鉴定科学研究院
ISSN 1671-2072  CN 31-1863/N
中国司法鉴定

›› 2009 ›› Issue (06): 12-14+2.

• 论文 • 上一篇    下一篇

略论“鉴定留置”——由邓玉姣案说起

王戬;   

  1. 华东政法大学法律学院;

On "Identification Detention"——Discussion from the "DENG Yu-jiao" Case

WANG Jian(Law School,East China University of Political Science and Law,Shanghai 200042,China)   

摘要： 邓玉娇故意伤害案中的司法精神医学鉴定的过程,非常典型地暴露出了我国司法精神医学鉴定中有关"鉴定留置"制度缺位的严重问题。精神病鉴定虽然是一个医学问题,但它更是一个法律问题,我国对司法精神病鉴定制度的规定存在严重的缺失,对精神病鉴定等一系列问题的立法必须提升到我国立法的议事日程上来。对此,我们应当借鉴国外成熟经验,首先,应认识到对犯罪嫌疑人精神病鉴定是需要干涉公民人身自由的强制处分行为,并明确限定鉴定留置的范围。其次,对于鉴定留置的适用条件,在决定适用此措施之前必须听取鉴定人、辩护人意见,同时,鉴定留置措施只能适用于具有重大犯罪嫌疑的被指控人。再次,应明确规定对犯罪嫌疑人精神病鉴定的期间,在对犯罪嫌疑人精神病鉴定的期间不计羁押期限的基础上,明确犯罪嫌疑人精神病鉴定的时间,应当能够折抵刑期。

关键词: 司法精神医学鉴定, 鉴定留置, 强制措施

Abstract: DENG Yu-jiao case,which happened in Badong,Hubei province,reflects the lack of "identification detention" system in forensic psychiatry in our country.Forensic psychiatry is not only a medical issue,but also a legal issue.Regulations of forensic psychiatry are not adequate in Chinese legal system.Legislations of forensic psychiatry should be paid attention to.We should learn experiences from foreign countries.Firstly,the scale of identification detention should be restricted to protect people’s right of freedom.Secondly,opinions of experts and defendants should be heard before "identification detention" is used.Only serious criminal defendants are suitable for this detention.Thirdly,period of detention should be stipulated.Period of forensic psychiatry should not be counted as period of detention,and the period of forensic psychiatry should be used to setoff the term of imprisonment.

Key words: forensic psychiatry, identification detention, compulsory measure