日本裁判員制度下關於精神鑑定之現狀與課題──從近年的一則最高法院判決說起

Current Status and Future Agenda of Forensic Psychiatric Evaluations under the Japanese Citizen Judge System─An Example of a Japanese Supreme Court’s Judgment on Mental Disability

在成人刑事司法的審判過程當中，每當重大案件出現了有關我國刑法第19條（行為責任能力）的適用問題時，「被告是否真的患有精神障礙嗎？」此一疑問就常會一躍成為社會新聞上的焦點，究其原因不外乎是社會輿論擔心被告會設法利用前述的規定作為規避刑責的免死金牌。
當專業的法官，在面對有關責任能力判定的個案審理時，必須在避免受到社會的輿論或被害者感情所左右的情況下，對於犯罪被告的責任非難進行適切的評斷；就一般而言，所謂適切的評斷應是指當一位成年被告的身心狀況出現了可能符合刑法第19條規定的適用情況時，法官就必須確認被告在行為時的確在精神狀態上發生障礙為前提，針對該障礙與被告犯行這兩者之間的關聯性及影響程度作出具體判斷並反映在最後的量刑上。但現實上該具體判斷的形成並非僅單靠法律上的專業，還涉及到醫療上的精神鑑定；因此各自的專業判斷要如何在個案審理過程中進行權衡便成為法官在對於被告究責時的一道難題。
隨著我國的國民參與刑事審判制度即將在2023年正式施行，被該制度選中成為國民法官的一般大眾將必須與專業法官一同來面對前述的難題，這對正處於新制整備階段的我國來說，此刻需要的是借重他國行之有年的經驗作為輔助新制上路的參考材料；因此，本文嘗試針對2009年日本的裁判員制度正式施行之後，關於在精神障礙判決中所採用的論點進行整理與分析，借用日本的經驗，盼能提供我國在新制上路之際一個自我檢視的空間。

In the course of adult criminal justice, whenever the question of the application of Article 19 of Criminal Law (Competence to Act) arises in a major case, the question of ’Is the defendant really mentally disabled? This question often becomes the focus of the news, mainly because the defendant can be completely exempted or relieved of criminal responsibility if he or she meets the requirements of Article 19 of the Criminal Law; therefore, public opinion is concerned that the offender will try to use Article 19 of the Criminal Law as a way to avoid criminal responsibility.
As a professional judge, in the process of judging cases related to the determination of responsibility, the judge must make an objective and impartial assessment of the connection between the defendant’s responsibility and the crime, while avoiding being influenced by public opinion or the feelings of the victim. Generally speaking, an objective and impartial judgment means not only relying on legal expertise, but also requiring medical expertise (i.e., Forensic Psychiatric Evaluations); therefore, how to take into account the respective legal and medical professional judgments becomes a difficult issue in the trial.
With bill to add citizen judges to criminal trials coming into effect in 2023, the general public, who have been elected as national judges, will have to face the aforementioned the difficult issue together with professional judges. Therefore, this paper attempts to compile and analyze the arguments that have been used in the judgment on mental disorders since the implementation of the Citizen Judge System in Japan in 2009, in the hope that the Japanese experience will provide a space for Taiwan to think.