This article examines the legislation and practice of compulsory treatment in China. Part I traces the Chinese history of criminal commitment law, explains the research methodology, and highlights some general empirical findings. Part II provides a comprehensive empirical analysis of compulsory treatment law in China, it covers both substantial issues such as criteria of compulsory treatment and procedural issues such as the commitment hearing, enforcement, and discharge of compulsory treatment. It also explores the compulsory treatment law from the human rights protection perspective. Our primary objective is to present the empirical findings to enable the legislative and other involved government agencies to make informed decisions about the future evolution of Chinese law in this area.

BACKGROUND: Medical malpractice litigations affect the practices of patient safety. However, medical malpractice litigations involve highly specialized knowledge. Thus, medical appraisal is usually essential in the ascertainment of responsibility and judicial decision-making. China\'s judicial system is characterized by a dual-mode of medical appraisal resulting from two parallel appraisal agencies: judicial appraisal institutions and medical associations. This paper examines whether or not and how choices of different medical appraisal agencies affect malpractice lawsuit results in China.
METHODS: We collected and sampled a total of 2557 verdicts pertaining to medical disputes from \"China Judgements Online\" in 2014. We used an ordinary least square regression model and a mediating effect regression model to analyze to what extent and how different choices between two medical appraisal agencies affect malpractice litigations.
RESULTS: (1) Almost 81.55% (2082) of litigants resorted to medical malpractice appraisals in China in 2014. Among 2070 cases with appraisal results accepted by the court, 60.10% of the litigants chose judicial appraisal institutions (1244), as opposed to medical associations (826). (2) Among 2557 cases, 2306 (90.18%) claimed compensation and 1919 (83.22%) were awarded compensation by the courts. The proportion of compensation paid in a case is 48% on average. (3) Appraisal agencies matter in the investigation of medical errors, which in turn affects the proportion of compensation paid in a case. (4) Choosing judicial appraisal institutions will raise the proportion of compensation paid by about 10% on average.
CONCLUSIONS: Different choices between appraisal institutions affect malpractice litigations in China. As the last resort for remedying medical malpractice, medical appraisals in the judicial system could be a source of inequality in China\'s medical litigation outcomes.

Technology and scientific advancements are accelerating changes in society at a pace that is challenging the abilities of government regulatory agencies and legal courts to understand the benefits and costs of these changes to humans, wildlife, and their environments. The social, economic, and political facets of concern, such as the potential effects of chemicals, complicate the preparation of regulatory standards and practices intended to safeguard the public. Court judges and attorneys and, in some cases, lay juries are tasked with interpreting the data and implications underlying these new advancements, often without the technical background necessary to understand complex subjects and subsequently make informed decisions. Here, we describe the scientific-quasi-judicial process adopted in Canada under the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, 1999, which could serve as a model for resolving conflicts between regulatory agencies and the regulated community. An example and process and lessons learned from the first Board of Review, which was for decamethylcyclopentasiloxane (D5; CAS# 541-02-06), are provided. Notable among these lessons are: 1) the need to apply state-of-the-science insights into the regulatory process, 2) to encourage agencies to continuously review and update their assessment processes, criteria, and models, and 3) provide these processes in guidance documents that are transparent and available to all stakeholders and generally foster closer cooperation between regulators, the academic community, industry, and nongovernment organizations (NGOs). Integr Environ Assess Manag 2016;12:572-579. © 2015 SETAC.

暂无摘要。

Although misjudgment is an issue of primary concern to the justice system and public safety, the response to misjudgment by the human brain remains unclear. We used fMRI to record neural activity in participants that encountered four possible judgments by the justice system with two basic components: whether the judgment was right or wrong [accuracy: right vs. wrong (misjudgment)] and whether the judgment was positive or negative [valence: positive vs. negative]. As hypothesized, the rostral ACC specifically processes the accuracy of judgment, being more active for misjudgment than for right judgment, while the striatum was uniquely responsible for the valence of judgment, being recruited to a larger extent by positive judgment compared to negative judgment. Furthermore, the activity in the rACC for positive misjudgments was positively correlated with that for negative misjudgments, which confirmed the misjudgment-specificity of the rACC. These results demonstrate that the brain can distinguish a misjudgment from a right judgment and regard a misjudgment as an emotionally arousing stimulus, independent of whether it is positive or negative, while positive judgment is considered as hedonic information, regardless of whether it is right or wrong. Our study is the first to reveal the neural mechanism that underlies judgment processing. This mechanism may constitute the basis of future studies to develop a novel marker for the detection of lies.