White Mitzi M S, Gutheil Thomas G
Dr. White is a Lecturer, Program in Psychiatry and the Law, Department of Psychiatry, Harvard Medical School, Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, Boston, MA. Dr. Gutheil is a Professor of Psychiatry, Department of Psychiatry, Beth Israel-Deaconess Medical Center, Harvard Medical School and Cofounder, Program in Psychiatry and the Law, Massachusetts Mental Health Center, Boston, MA.
J Am Acad Psychiatry Law. 2016 Dec;44(4):425-436.
The increasing number of criminal defendants who are choosing to self-represent poses special challenges for legal systems with regard to the types of limits that should be placed on a defendant's basic human right to defend himself without the assistance of counsel. While courts strive to respect the dignity and autonomy of the defendant that are encompassed in this right, they also want to ensure that justice is delivered and the dignity of the courtroom is maintained. The Supreme Court of the United States, in its opinion in Indiana v. Edwards (2008), held that while the right to self-represent recognized in Faretta v. California (1975) remains, states and trial judges can place limits on a defendant's right to self-representation when a defendant lacks the mental capacities needed to prepare and conduct an adequate defense. Following the court's lead, we first examine the types and range of tasks that a defendant who chooses to self-represent must perform. Based on this analysis, we propose a five-part model that forensic practitioners can use as a conceptual framework for assessing whether a defendant has deficits that would affect his competence to perform critical self-representation tasks. The five areas that the model recommends practitioners assess are whether a defendant can engage in goal-directed behaviors, has sufficient communication skills, can engage in constructive social intercourse, can control his emotions in an adversarial arena, and has the cognitive abilities needed to argue his case adequately. It is recommended that practitioners use the model in their testimony to provide the trier of fact with a comprehensive report of the areas in which a defendant has deficits that will prevent him from protecting his interests in receiving a fair and equitable trial.
越来越多的刑事被告选择自行辩护，这给法律体系带来了特殊挑战，涉及到在无律师协助情况下应如何限制被告自行辩护这一基本人权。虽然法院努力尊重这项权利所包含的被告尊严和自主性，但它们也希望确保司法公正得以实现，法庭尊严得以维护。美国最高法院在其对“印第安纳州诉爱德华兹案”（2008年）的判决意见中认为，虽然在“法雷塔诉加利福尼亚州案”（1975年）中所认可的自行辩护权仍然存在，但当被告缺乏准备和进行充分辩护所需的心智能力时，各州及初审法官可以对被告的自行辩护权加以限制。遵循法院的指引，我们首先考察选择自行辩护的被告必须履行的任务类型和范围。基于这一分析，我们提出一个由五个部分组成的模型，法医从业者可以将其用作概念框架，以评估被告是否存在会影响其履行关键自行辩护任务能力的缺陷。该模型建议从业者评估的五个领域是：被告是否能够从事目标导向行为、是否具备足够沟通技巧、是否能够进行建设性社交互动、是否能够在对抗性场合控制自己的情绪，以及是否具备充分论证其案件所需的认知能力。建议从业者在作证时使用该模型，以便向事实认定者提供一份全面报告，说明被告在哪些领域存在缺陷，这些缺陷将妨碍他在接受公平公正审判时维护自己的利益。
