Nair M G, Wessels W H
Department of Psychiatry, Faculty of Medicine, University of Natal, Durban, South Africa.
Med Law. 1992;11(3-4):297-302.
The insanity defence has always been a contentious issue. This study was carried out on a sample of 95 consecutive forensic, psychiatric observation cases. The cost-effectiveness of ordering routine investigations during the observation period appeared to be questionable since the results of selective special investigations yielded more useful information. It was found that there was little calculated abuse of the insanity defence, but that the situation was rather one of barely literate persons naively attempting to use it, especially in cases of serious crime. The incidence of these naive users might have been greatly reduced had there been adequate screening before the accused were sent for observation. The court generally accepted the psychiatrist's opinion with regard to mental illness and criminal responsibility. It, however, differed on occasion when it came to the disposal of those accused who were found to be mentally ill.
精神错乱辩护一直是一个有争议的问题。本研究对95例连续的法医精神病观察病例样本进行。在观察期内安排常规检查的成本效益似乎值得怀疑，因为选择性特殊检查的结果能提供更有用的信息。结果发现，很少有人蓄意滥用精神错乱辩护，但情况更多是文化程度很低的人天真地试图使用它，尤其是在严重犯罪案件中。如果在被告被送去观察之前进行充分筛查，这些天真使用者的发生率可能会大大降低。法院一般接受精神病医生关于精神疾病和刑事责任的意见。然而，在如何处置被认定患有精神疾病的被告方面，法院有时会有不同意见。
