Criminal Liability of Behaviors of Individuals with Psychotic Disorders or Dissociative Identity Disorder

• Main Authors: Po-Hsiang Huang, 黃柏翔
• Other Authors: Jung-chien Huang
• Format: Others
• Language: zh-TW
• Published: 2008
• Online Access: http://ndltd.ncl.edu.tw/handle/08493155338613550626

碩士 === 國立臺灣大學 === 法律學研究所 === 96 === Criminal law issues regarding individuals with mental disorders have always been hard for legal practices in Taiwan to tackle. Although forensic psychiatric evaluations can be performed to provide expert input, problems still prevail in actual practice. Courts, for instance, often either depend excessively on evaluation opinions and render the exercise of judicial discretion to psychiatric evaluators, or arbitrarily negate evaluation opinions without substantial reasons. The individualities of defendants with mental illness, therefore, are overlooked. This leads to concerns about justification of punishment. As long as these problems remain unsolved, it is difficult for us to reach appropriate judgments about behaviors committed by individuals with psychotic disorders (even this kind of mental disorder plays an important role in real practices). Furthermore, when it comes to Dissociative Identity Disorder (also known as Multiple Personality Disorder), which is still unfamiliar to our courts, judicial decisions will inevitably become even more arbitrary and capricious. This thesis holds that the attitude of “Seeing Others” is the key solution to these predicaments. Judicial personnel should motivate themselves to approach “others” and try to understand “others” with this attitude. Only when the existences and real situations of individuals with mental disorders are recognized can legal judgments conform to our beliefs. In view of the aforesaid position, this thesis introduces diagnostic criteria, features, and related legal discourses of Psychotic Disorders and Dissociative Identity Disorder. Although not elucidated in detail, they might still serve as reference materials while we are dealing with issues involving the disorders. In conclusion, based on the variety and complexity of psychotic symptoms, judgments about criminal liability of individuals with psychotic disorders should avoid routinely indulging in generalizations and stereotypes── like General Non-responsibility Theory. Defendants’ symptoms and their effects on defendants’ mental state and physical condition at the time of the crime should be considered before judicial decisions are made. As to defendants with Dissociative Identity Disorder, no matter how we view alters, the criteria proposed by Modified Unified Theory should be able to apply to all circumstances. Thus, if and only if all alters meet the legal requisites necessary to be found guilty, the justification for punishment can finally be confirmed.