Py B, Zeldine G
Université Française du Pacifique, Nouvelle-Calédonie.
Med Trop (Mars). 1996;56(4 Pt 2):483-6.
A French Melanesian citizen who killed his uncle attributed his act to local beliefs involving witchcraft. The medical expert called on to give his psychiatric assessment ponders if he was able to fulfill his role of mediator. Since examination of the defendant revealed no mental abnormalities, the only possible explanation for the crime was the one implicating the local culture that made the defendant say that he had not killed a relative but rather a sorcerer. The psychiatrist asked the lawyer for a complete legal opinion. From the penal standpoint establishing responsibility depends on the defendant's powers of discrimination. Criminal law distinguishes between the intent, motive, and objectives of an act on the basis of one criteria which is damage in most cases. In the present case the act was intentional, the motive could not be taken into account, and the objective could not be considered to have social value. This case forces the conclusion that the juridical concept of "justifying fact" is based on social choices that rarely coincide with the culture of individuals in a minority group. By finding the defendant guilty the judicial system achieved social redress with respect to one culture but denied moral redress according to the values of another.
一名法属美拉尼西亚公民杀害了自己的叔叔，他将自己的行为归因于当地涉及巫术的信仰。被要求进行精神状况评估的医学专家思考他是否能够履行其中介角色。由于对被告的检查未发现精神异常，该罪行唯一可能的解释是与当地文化有关，这使得被告称他杀死的不是一名亲属，而是一个巫师。这位精神科医生向律师寻求完整的法律意见。从刑法角度来看，确定责任取决于被告的辨别能力。刑法基于一个标准区分行为的意图、动机和目的，在大多数情况下这个标准就是损害后果。在本案中，行为是故意的，动机无法考虑，且目的也不能被认为具有社会价值。这个案例迫使我们得出结论，即“正当理由”的法律概念是基于社会选择的，而这些选择很少与少数群体中个人的文化相契合。通过判定被告有罪，司法系统在一种文化层面实现了社会补救，但根据另一种文化的价值观却否定了道德补救。
