Pei Wei, van der Wolf Michiel
Beihang Law School of the Beihang University, China.
Erasmus School of Law of the Erasmus University Rotterdam, The Netherlands.
Int J Law Psychiatry. 2016 Sep-Dec;49(Pt A):31-39. doi: 10.1016/j.ijlp.2016.05.006. Epub 2016 Jun 4.
Reforms of the criminal justice system in China in recent years have included the 2012 Code of Criminal Procedure (CCP), which resulted in new disposals for mentally disordered offenders. From a Western perspective, changes in Chinese criminal law are sometimes clichéd as toothless window dressing, but they may represent a genuine step forward in safeguarding human rights. Taking a historical perspective, this paper reveals that in the East, as much as in the West, there is a 'moral tradition' of not punishing mentally disordered offenders who are not considered responsible for their acts. There are clear differences in disposal for those acquitted having been found 'not guilty by reason of insanity'. Whereas Western jurisdictions have offered (criminal) courts the opportunity for commitment in (forensic) mental hospitals from the early 19th Century, in China, disposal has remained, until the recent changes, the responsibility of the administration (mainly the police) or the family of the offender. A few high profile cases brought to light the inadequacy of these arrangements and the general disregard of obvious mental health issues when sentencing offenders. There was lack of clarity regarding who would take responsibility for treatment and issues of future public protection arising from a mental disorder. The 2012 CCP introduces the power of mental health commitment by the judiciary for those found non-responsible for an offense because of a mental disorder. Similar to provisions in Western jurisdictions there remain human rights concerns regarding aspects of 2012 CCP and the role of 'preventive detention' for mentally disordered offenders on indeterminate secure mental health detention. Nevertheless, the shift to judicial decision making in such cases and the possibility of mental health commitment are welcome steps in improving the human rights of this vulnerable population.
近年来，中国刑事司法系统的改革包括2012年的《刑事诉讼法》，该法为精神错乱罪犯带来了新的处置方式。从西方的角度来看，中国刑法的变化有时被视为没有实效的表面文章，但它们可能代表了在保障人权方面真正向前迈进的一步。从历史的角度来看，本文揭示了在东方和西方一样，存在一种“道德传统”，即不惩罚那些对自己行为不负责任的精神错乱罪犯。对于那些因“精神错乱而无罪”被宣告无罪的人，处置方式存在明显差异。西方司法管辖区从19世纪初就为（刑事）法院提供了将罪犯送入（法医）精神病院的机会，而在中国，直到最近的改革之前, 处置一直是行政部门（主要是警方）或罪犯家属的责任。一些备受瞩目的案件揭示了这些安排的不足之处，以及在对罪犯量刑时普遍忽视明显的心理健康问题。对于谁将负责治疗以及精神障碍引发的未来公共保护问题缺乏明确规定。2012年《刑事诉讼法》赋予了司法机关对因精神障碍而对犯罪行为不负责任的人进行精神健康强制收治的权力。与西方司法管辖区的规定类似，对于2012年《刑事诉讼法》的某些方面以及对精神错乱罪犯进行无限期安全精神健康拘留的“预防性拘留”作用，仍然存在人权方面的担忧。然而，在此类案件中转向司法决策以及精神健康强制收治的可能性，是改善这一弱势群体人权的值得欢迎的举措。
