Toib Josef A
University of Virginia, USA.
Int J Law Psychiatry. 2008 Aug-Sep;31(4):308-18. doi: 10.1016/j.ijlp.2007.11.012. Epub 2008 Apr 18.
In Israeli jurisprudence there is a substantial difference towards mentally ill patients between the civil and penal law systems that goes well beyond differences required by their separate objectives. Mentally ill people dangerous to others due to their illness belong in the hospital, not in the community or in jail. The data gathered especially for this paper make it hard to escape the conclusion that contemporary practice in Israel does not accord with this objective. On the civil front, inaccuracy in predicting who is dangerous may lead to involuntary commitment of people who are not dangerous. On the criminal side, too few people are sent to the hospital in Israel and correspondingly too many to jail. Comparison with US data and practice shows that on the civil side prediction has been improved by using actuarial methods, while on the penal side more up to date definitions of mental illness have been adopted. Whatever the appropriate solution for Israel, surely the first requirement is recognition of the problem.
在以色列的司法体系中,民法和刑法系统对精神病患者的态度存在显著差异,这种差异远远超出了各自目标所要求的不同。因疾病而对他人构成危险的精神病患者应住院治疗,而非留在社区或关进监狱。专门为本论文收集的数据让人难以避免得出这样的结论:以色列目前的做法不符合这一目标。在民事方面,对危险人群预测的不准确可能导致非危险人群被非自愿收治。在刑事方面,以色列送往医院的人数过少,相应地送进监狱的人数过多。与美国的数据和做法相比,在民事方面,精算方法的使用改进了预测;在刑事方面,则采用了更新的精神疾病定义。无论以色列的适当解决方案是什么,首先肯定需要认识到这个问题。