检索规则说明:AND代表“并且”;OR代表“或者”;NOT代表“不包含”;(注意必须大写,运算符两边需空一格)
检 索 范 例 :范例一: (K=图书馆学 OR K=情报学) AND A=范并思 范例二:J=计算机应用与软件 AND (U=C++ OR U=Basic) NOT M=Visual
作 者:周德怡 张国富 Zhou Deyi;Zhang Guofu(The Affiliated Wuxi Mental Health Center of Nanjing Medical University,Wuxi 214151,China)
机构地区:[1]南京医科大学附属无锡精神卫生中心,无锡214151
出 处:《中华精神科杂志》2020年第4期335-338,共4页Chinese Journal of Psychiatry
摘 要:探讨刑事责任能力司法鉴定意见与法院宣判的刑事责任能力之差异。通过彩某凶杀案,对先后2次司法鉴定意见与司法机关最终宣判结果进行分析,讨论"实质性辨认能力"在司法鉴定中的利弊,得出实质性辨认能力不能完全等同于刑法学所指的辨认能力,以"实质性辨认能力"评定刑事责任能力的司法鉴定模式需要重新审视。This study aimed to analyze the differences of assessment results of capacity for criminal responsibility(CCR)between forensic psychiatry and judicial decision.Taking the murder case of Cai as an example,we analyzed the results of the two forensic assessments and the final court decision and discussed advantages as well as disadvantages of the“substantial recognition capacity”(SRC)in forensic assessment.We found that SRC was not completely equal to the recognition ability in criminal law.Cautions are needed when applying the judicial expertise model of SRC in assessing CCR of patients with mental disorders.
正在载入数据...
正在载入数据...
正在载入数据...
正在载入数据...
正在载入数据...
正在载入数据...
正在载入数据...
正在链接到云南高校图书馆文献保障联盟下载...
云南高校图书馆联盟文献共享服务平台 版权所有©
您的IP:3.135.64.92