Sass H
Fortschr Neurol Psychiatr. 1985 Feb;53(2):55-62. doi: 10.1055/s-2007-1001953.
The reformulation of the sections 20, 21 StGB (concerning the defense of insanity in the German law) brought a renewed interest in the controversy about the disease concept and the assessment of responsibility in forensic psychiatry. Although the opinions of Kurt Schneider are still very influential, there are competing conceptions based on positions of normal psychology, social psychology or motivational psychology. The controversial issues are discussed and an integrating approach is proposed, though the psychopathological analysis is still regarded as the most important aspect. The question, whether one of the categories of the sections 20, 21 StGB is qualified and whether the intensity of the psychological disturbance indicates a reduced responsibility, must be answered regarding the empirical knowledge of mentally ill, abnormal and sane individuals. Instead of the former concept of disease, which was based on a known or postulated somatic pathology, a psychopathological system of reference for each category of the sections 20, 21 StGB has to be developed for the assessment of the disfunction during the offense. As an example, two catalogues of positive and negative criteria are proposed for the detection of a "profound disturbance of consciousness" in crimes of passion.
德国刑法典第20、21条（关于精神错乱辩护）的重新修订引发了人们对法医精神病学中疾病概念和责任评估争议的新关注。尽管库尔特·施耐德的观点仍然极具影响力，但也存在基于普通心理学、社会心理学或动机心理学立场的不同概念。本文讨论了这些争议问题，并提出了一种综合方法，不过心理病理学分析仍被视为最重要的方面。关于德国刑法典第20、21条中的类别之一是否适用，以及心理障碍的严重程度是否表明责任减轻的问题，必须根据对精神病患者、异常个体和正常个体的实证知识来回答。为了评估犯罪时的功能障碍，必须针对德国刑法典第20、21条的每一类制定一个心理病理学参考系统，而不是基于已知或假定的躯体病理学的旧疾病概念。例如，针对激情犯罪中“意识深度障碍”的检测，提出了两个正面和负面标准的目录。
