Hirata Toyoaki, Nakajima Naoshi, Yoshioka Ryuichi, Iimori Makio, Itoh Tetsuhiro, Okae Akira, Oda Tatsuro, Ohara Motoo, Katsuragawa Syuichi, Kawazoe Yasunari, Shiraishi Hiromi, Tsukada Kazumi, Nagao Takuo, Hara Takashi, Hirano Makoto, Hirayasu Yoshio, Matsubara Saburo, Miura Isao, Yamazumi Syun, Moriyama Kimio
Chiba Psychiatric Medical Center.
Seishin Shinkeigaku Zasshi. 2004;106(12):1539-82.
In October 2001, Nanashakon, a council composed of seven psychiatry-related organizations in Japan, decided to launch an investigation into forensic psychiatry in Japan, and established a working team (WT) for this purpose. From its establishment to March 2004, the WT performed surveys and analyses of the current situation of preliminary reports by psychiatric experts (preliminary reports) and of psychiatric practice in correctional facilities. Based on the results, the WT has presented proposals including guidelines for preliminary reports. In January 2002, the WT conducted an awareness survey on the status quo of testimony by psychiatric experts and forensic psychiatry, targeting the members of the Japanese Society of Psychiatry and Neurology, and obtained 666 replies. The survey revealed various critical opinions such as skepticism over the current punishment imposed on criminal patients with mental disorders. In February 2002, the WT obtained data on preliminary reports (2,042 cases) compiled prior to prosecution in FY2000 from the Japanese Ministry of Justice. Reviewing the details and differences between the evaluation by psychiatrists and the decision by public prosecutors, the WT pointed out the ambiguity of criteria used for the evaluation of competency of weak-minded persons and the criteria for criminal punishment. Around the same time, the WT was also asked by a news agency to analyze the preliminary reports of 50 district public prosecutor offices. The results revealed marked regional differences in the operation of the preliminary evaluation system for competency. In January 2003, the WT collected 146 preliminary reports from around the country for comparison and review, and again found conspicuous individual and regional discrepancies in the format and content. Based on these results, the WT conducted a hearing of 41 expert opinions on preliminary reports, and in January 2004, proposed guidelines outlining a format model of preliminary reports, and a training and authorizing system for forensic psychiatrists, to standardize preliminary reports and enhance their reliability. In February 2004, the WT conducted a questionnaire survey on the current situation of psychiatry in correctional facilities, targeting doctors with experience working under these circumstances. Fifty-one replies were obtained. Most of the respondents approved of the current system. However, to incite arguments in this area, attempts were made to draw critical responses and discussion by presenting data on the current situation of psychiatric practice in correctional facilities.
2001年10月，由日本七个与精神病学相关的组织组成的委员会“七社协议会”决定对日本的法医精神病学展开调查，并为此成立了一个工作小组（WT）。从成立到2004年3月，该工作小组对精神病学专家的初步报告（初步报告）现状以及惩教设施中的精神病学实践进行了调查和分析。基于这些结果，工作小组提出了包括初步报告指南在内的建议。2002年1月，工作小组针对日本精神神经学会的成员，就精神病学专家的证词现状和法医精神病学进行了一项认知调查，共收到666份回复。调查揭示了各种批评意见，比如对目前对患有精神障碍的刑事患者所施加惩罚的怀疑。2002年2月，工作小组从日本法务省获取了2000财年起诉前汇编的初步报告数据（2042例）。通过审查精神科医生的评估与检察官决定之间的细节和差异，工作小组指出了用于评估心智薄弱者能力的标准以及刑事处罚标准的模糊性。大约在同一时间，一家新闻机构也要求工作小组分析50个地方检察官办公室的初步报告。结果显示，能力初步评估系统的运作存在显著的地区差异。2003年1月，工作小组从全国各地收集了146份初步报告用于比较和审查，再次发现格式和内容方面存在明显的个体和地区差异。基于这些结果，工作小组就初步报告听取了41位专家的意见，并于2004年1月提出了初步报告格式模型指南以及法医精神病学家的培训和授权系统，以规范初步报告并提高其可靠性。2004年2月，工作小组针对有在惩教设施工作经验的医生，就惩教设施中的精神病学现状进行了问卷调查。共收到51份回复。大多数受访者认可现行制度。然而，为了引发该领域的争论，工作小组试图通过呈现惩教设施中精神病学实践现状的数据来引发批评性回应和讨论。
