英文摘要 |
"When a judge tries a defendant with a mental illness and a disclaimer based on such an illness, a psychiatrist is often required to provide a psychiatric identification of the defendant to the judge; however, the content of such a document is usually only focused on identifying the mental state of the defendant at the time of the case, i.e., whether he or she was suffering from mental illness at the time. The term ''impact'' is used as a basis for guilt or mitigation, although this term often lacks any assessment of recidivism, danger, and treatability. If a defendant was found to be affected by psychiatric symptoms when he or she committed a crime, the judge often requires him or her to be placed in custodial protection for several years when mitigating or exempting his or her sentence. However, there are issues related to what kind of custodial protection is needed in the future, the locations at which custodial protection should be accepted, when the defendants need to be reassessed, and the lack of a mechanism for tracking the situations of individual cases; thus, the effectiveness of custodial protection is called into question. This article attempts to analyze the future needs related to custodial protection based on the principles, theories, procedures and contents of psychiatric identification; for example, a rolling recidivism, risk and effectiveness evaluation should be conducted regularly in cases pertaining to guardianship, which should be supplemented by the International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health (ICF). In addition, different types of custodial protection cases are classified, and different types of custodial protection treatment places are provided based on the concepts of sub-cabins and diversion and are combined with discharge planning services and the concept of a social safety network to develop discharge, follow-up and treatment strategies." |