UNASSIGNED: There is a consensus hidden in the criminal legislation of many countries that the criminal responsibility capacity of juvenile offenders is not significantly different from that of their peers. The purpose of this paper was to test this hypothesis. The research objects of this paper were 187 juvenile offenders in J Province, China, who are under detention measures, and 2,449 students from junior high school, senior high school and university in S Province as comparison objects. We subjected the gathered materials to independent-samples t-tests and one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA).
UNASSIGNED: (1) The self-control ability (109.30, 123.59) and empathy ability (63.86, 72.45) of juvenile offenders were significantly different from those of ordinary minors, but the difference of dialectical thinking ability was not statistically significant; (2) Except for the influence of mother\'s education level and family income on dialectical thinking ability, the other variables had no statistical significance on the three kinds of ability. Therefore, it was suggested that the correction plan and means for juvenile offenders should focus on the improvement of self-control ability and empathy ability.

UNASSIGNED: To avoid public health risks, all governments ensure monitoring and treatment of mentally ill persons if they offend and assess their level of criminal responsibility. The Criminal Procedure Law of the People\'s Republic of China (2013) instituted special procedures. However, there are few articles in English which explain the implementation of mandatory treatment procedures in China.
UNASSIGNED: We collected 5,262 qualified documents from 2013 to 2021 from the China Judgments Documents Online. We analyzed social demographic characteristics, trial-related information as well as the mandatory treatment-related content, to investigate the mandatory treatment of China\'s mentally ill offenders without criminal responsibility, from 2013 to 2021. Simple descriptive statistics and chi-square tests were used to compare differences among several types of documents.
UNASSIGNED: There was an overall change trend of the number of documents: increasing year by year from 2013 to 2019 after the implementation of the new law, but with sharp decrease in 2020 and 2021 during covid-19 pandemic. From 2013 to 2021, a total of 3,854 people had applications made for mandatory treatment, of whom 3,747 (97.2%) were given mandatory treatment, 107 (2.8%) had applications rejected. \"Schizophrenia and other psychotic disorders\" was the most common diagnosis in both groups and all offenders receiving mandatory treatment (3,747, 100.0%) were considered to have no criminal responsibility. A total of 1,294 patients had applications made for relief of mandatory treatment, of whom 827 (63.9%) were subsequently approved for relief, 467 (36.1%) were rejected. A total of 118 patients had applications for relief two or more times, and 56 (47.5%) were finally relieved.
UNASSIGNED: Our study presents the Chinese model of a criminal mandatory treatment system to the international community which has been in operation since the implementation of the new law. Legislatory changes and covid-19 pandemic can have effect on the number of mandatory treatment cases. Patients, their close relatives and mandatory treatment institutions have the right to apply for relief from mandatory treatment, but the final decision in China is taken by the court.

In China, police departments usually initiate assessment of criminal responsibility after patients with mental disorders commit crimes. However, the specific conditions demanding assessment are not clearly stipulated by law. Few studies have been conducted on the epidemiological characteristics and assessment of criminal responsibility in patients with mental disorders. This study aimed to analyze the features and identify influencing factors for assessment of criminal responsibility for patients with mental disorders in a single-center cohort.
Cases undergoing criminal responsibility assessment at the Center of Forensic Science, East China University of Political Science and Law in Shanghai (CFS, ECUPL) between 2010 and 2020 were retrospectively reviewed. Criminal responsibility was categorized as criminal irresponsibility, diminished criminal responsibility, and full criminal responsibility. Differences among the groups were then statistically analyzed.
In the study period, 437 patients including 361 males (82.61%) were referred for criminal responsibility assessment. Their ages ranged from 15 years to 91 years. After assessment, the number of cases with criminal irresponsibility, diminished criminal responsibility, and full criminal responsibility were 196 (44.85%), 181 (41.42%), and 60 (13.73%), respectively. The Chi-square test and nominal regression analysis showed that influencing factors for assessment of criminal responsibility comprised crime in public places (OR = 14.734; 95% CI: 1.463-148.424), crime in victim\'s residence (OR = 10.852; 95% CI: 1.068-110.214), crime in suspect\'s residence (OR = 9.542; 95% CI: 1.046-87.092), forensic psychiatric diagnosis of F1X (OR = 0.014,0.011; 95%CI:0.001-0.261,0-0.5), F2X (OR = 5.75; 95%CI:1.315-23.145), F4X (OR = 0.077; 95%CI:0.016-0.38,) and F6X (OR = 0.112,0.075; 95% CI: 0.022-0.558,0.006-0.959), criminal object of property (OR = 9.989; 95% CI: 1.305-76.455), cases of theft (OR = 0.09, 0.087; 95% CI: 0.013-0.648,0.012-0.654), and cases of endangering public security (OR = 0.152, 0.205; 95% CI: 0.034-0.678, 0.045-0.931).
Crime in public places, suspect\'s residence and victim\'s residence, forensic psychiatric diagnosis of F1X, F2X, F4X and F6X, criminal object of property, case types of theft and endangering public security were influencing factors in assessment of criminal responsibility. Therefore, special attention should be paid to patients with mental disorders under such circumstances in order to avoid bias on assessment of criminal responsibility.

暂无摘要。

OBJECTIVE: To explore the characteristics of schizophrenia patients\' homicide behaviors and the influences of the assessments of criminal capacity.
METHODS: Indicators such as demographic and clinical data, characteristics of criminal behaviors and criminal capacity from the suspects whom were diagnosed by forensic psychiatry as schizophrenia （n=110） and normal mental （n=70） with homicide behavior, were collected by self-made investigation form and compared. The influences of the assessments of criminal capacity on the suspects diagnosed as schizophrenia were also analyzed using logistic regression analysis.
RESULTS: There were no significant statistical differences between the schizophrenic group and the normal mental group concerning age, gender, education and marital status （P>0.05）. There were significant statistical differences between the two groups concerning thought disorder, emotion state and social function before crime （P<0.05） and there were significant statistical differences in some characteristics of the case such as aggressive history （P<0.05）, cue, trigger, plan, criminal incentives, object of crime, circumstance cognition and self-protection （P<0.05）. Multivariate logistic regression analysis suggested that thought disorder, emotion state, social function, criminal incentives, plan and self-protection before crime of the schizophrenic group were positively correlated with the criminal capacity （P<0.05）.
CONCLUSIONS: The relevant influences of psychopathology and crime characteristics should be considered comprehensively for improving the accuracy of the criminal capacity evaluation on the suspects diagnosed as schizophrenia with homicide behavior.

Reforms of the criminal justice system in China in recent years have included the 2012 Code of Criminal Procedure (CCP), which resulted in new disposals for mentally disordered offenders. From a Western perspective, changes in Chinese criminal law are sometimes clichéd as toothless window dressing, but they may represent a genuine step forward in safeguarding human rights. Taking a historical perspective, this paper reveals that in the East, as much as in the West, there is a \'moral tradition\' of not punishing mentally disordered offenders who are not considered responsible for their acts. There are clear differences in disposal for those acquitted having been found \'not guilty by reason of insanity\'. Whereas Western jurisdictions have offered (criminal) courts the opportunity for commitment in (forensic) mental hospitals from the early 19th Century, in China, disposal has remained, until the recent changes, the responsibility of the administration (mainly the police) or the family of the offender. A few high profile cases brought to light the inadequacy of these arrangements and the general disregard of obvious mental health issues when sentencing offenders. There was lack of clarity regarding who would take responsibility for treatment and issues of future public protection arising from a mental disorder. The 2012 CCP introduces the power of mental health commitment by the judiciary for those found non-responsible for an offense because of a mental disorder. Similar to provisions in Western jurisdictions there remain human rights concerns regarding aspects of 2012 CCP and the role of \'preventive detention\' for mentally disordered offenders on indeterminate secure mental health detention. Nevertheless, the shift to judicial decision making in such cases and the possibility of mental health commitment are welcome steps in improving the human rights of this vulnerable population.

In China, the criminal responsibility of the mentally disordered offenders is divided into three levels, there are the whole responsibility, diminished responsibility and irresponsibility. According to the Criminal Law, \"If a mental disordered patient causes harmful consequences at a time when he is unable to recognize or control his own conduct, upon verification and confirmation through legal procedure, he shall not bear criminal responsibility.\" That means there are two standards of assessing criminal responsibility, namely volitional and cognitive capacity. It is as equal as the Mc\'Naughton Rule and the Irresistible Impulse Test. But for a long time, the criminal responsibility was assessed mainly by experience because of lacking of standardized assessment instrument. Recently, we have developed \"the rating scale of criminal responsibility for mentally disordered offenders (RSCRs)\". The scale includes eighteen items, namely criminal motivation, aura before offense, inducement of crime, time and place and object and tool selectivity of crime, emotion during the crime, shirking responsibility after offense, concealing the truth during inquest, camouflage, understanding the nature of the offense, estimating the consequence of the offense, impairment of life ability, impairment of learning or work, impairment of insight, impairment of reality testing, and impairment of self-control. This scale can be applicable for all cases and easy to use. This scale had been tried out in several forensic psychiatry institutes, the Cronbach α of the scale is 0.93, and all items have high correlation with the total score of the scale (r=0.50-0.89). Two factors were extracted by the factorial analysis, and the cumulative squared loading was 68.62%. The scores of the three levels were 9.66 ± 5.11, 26.54 ± 5.21 and 40.08 ± 7.90 respectively and highly significant differences were observed among groups. By establishing discrimination analysis among three levels, classification results suggested that 88.90% of the original grouped cases were correctly classified, and the discriminant value had high conformity with the experts\' opinions. The data showed that the scale would be the best validated instrument for the criminal responsibility in China.