Freckelton Ian
Law Faculty and Department of Psychological Medicine, Monash University; Melbourne, Australia.
Int J Law Psychiatry. 2005 Jul-Aug;28(4):375-404. doi: 10.1016/j.ijlp.2004.06.008.
Much research in relation to mental illness and the law has concentrated upon when accused persons are entitled to avail themselves of the defence of not guilty by reason of insanity or mental impairment. However, the decision as to when persons found not guilty by such pleas should be released step by step back into the community involves difficult analyses of the risk of recidivism by persons who have committed serious acts of violence whilst mentally ill. This article analyses some 70 cases heard by the Supreme Court of Victoria in Australia since the jurisdiction to make such decisions has been transferred from the executive arm of government to the judiciary. The jurisprudence generated by the Victorian Supreme Court constitutes Australia's most developed law in relation to prediction of dangerousness. This article evaluates the different and subtle dynamics that have influenced the judges in an increasingly sophisticated way to grapple with the phenomenon of mental illness in deciding when persons who have already killed can safely be released from involuntary detention status within the confines of a forensic psychiatric institution back into the general community.
许多与精神疾病和法律相关的研究都集中在被指控者何时有权以精神错乱或精神损伤为由进行无罪辩护。然而，对于因这些抗辩被判无罪的人应何时逐步回归社区的决定，涉及对那些在精神病期间实施严重暴力行为的人再次犯罪风险的艰难分析。本文分析了自做出此类决定的管辖权从政府行政部门转移至司法部门以来，澳大利亚维多利亚最高法院审理的约70起案件。维多利亚最高法院产生的判例法构成了澳大利亚在危险性预测方面最完善的法律。本文评估了不同且微妙的动态因素，这些因素以日益复杂的方式影响着法官，使其在决定那些已经杀人的人何时能够在法医精神病机构的范围内安全地从非自愿拘留状态释放并回归普通社区时，应对精神疾病现象。
