Laws and regulations about the forensic psychiatric systems in China and America were compared, and suggestions for improving the forensic psychiatric system of China were provided. There are many differences regarding the role of the forensic psychiatrist, the initiation of the assessment and the admission of expert opinion because of elements in the legal systems in China and America. The Chinese system has the advantages of objectivity, cost saving and high efficiency; but it has deficiencies in procedural justice and the admission of expert opinion. China can persist with the current system while taking measures to give more rights to the litigants to participate in their assessment, and while improving the quality and utility of the expert opinion; however, this review article will compare broadly the two systems without addressing human rights issues or procedural justice issues, nor will it presume to address the entirety of Chinese systems. In addition, China is developing its legal system for dealing with the mentally ill defendant in situations involving the criminal justice system and civil commitment. Although China enacted new laws regarding the mandatory treatment for the mentally ill, both in criminal and civil systems, there remain many aspects to be improved, including but not limited to a system of review of the decision to detain a patient on psychiatric grounds, and the need for provisions in the laws preventing indefinite detention. From this viewpoint, America\'s laws and regulations are instructive for us, in matters such as the method of dealing with the mentally ill defendant who is \"incompetent to stand trial\", \"not guilty only by reason of insanity\" or \"guilty but mentally ill\". The conditional release of the committed mentally ill person and the special programs in the forensic security hospital are all worthy of study by China in order to manage the mentally ill offender and to reduce the recidivism rate.

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.

Prompted by four questions, forensic mental health clinicians from Russia, China, Japan, Hong Kong, Australia and New Zealand provided information on both the legislative basis and current practice concerning the relationship between legal insanity, intoxication and drug induced psychosis in their six Pacific Rim Countries which account for nearly 20% of the world\'s population. Details of the survey for each contributing nation are provided. While there are significant variations in practice that have been shaped by regional legal, clinical and cultural influences there is considerable similarity in the legislation underpinning how these issues are considered. Consequently there remain similar challenges for each nation. In none of the legislative bases was the issue of drug induced psychosis specifically addressed. The authors conclude that evolving pharmaco-neuropsychiatric knowledge, societal values and patterns of substance misuse require nations to consider developments in scientific and clinical knowledge to support their interpretations of the relationship between altered mental states as a result of substance use and the legal construct of insanity.

OBJECTIVE: To analyze the difference between the cognitive and control ability and the responsibility in forensic psychiatry evaluation.
METHODS: To compare the results of the responsibility evaluation from 2001.1 to 2006.10 (the first period) with that of the cognitive and control ability evaluation from 2006.11 to 2010.10 (the second period). The admissibility opinions on court judgment and evaluation were investigated by return visit. The legal professions\' opinions on forensic psychiatric issues from the police office, the procuratorate, the court, and the judiciary were investigated.
RESULTS: There was no significant difference of the criminal types between two periods (P > 0.05). There was significant difference of the diagnostic types between two periods (P < 0.05). The proportion of normal range and part loss of the cognitive and control ability in the second period were higher than that in the first period, but the proportion of complete loss of the cognitive and control ability in the second period was lower than that in the first period (P < 0.05). Among the legal professions, 70.5% of them thought that \"the evaluation of cognitive and control ability\" was different from \"the evaluation of criminal responsibility\" and 94.9% of them thought that \"to confirm the influence of the forensic psychiatric evaluation of mental disorder on the crime behavior\" or \"to assess of cognitive and control ability\" met requirements of normative judicial expertise.
CONCLUSIONS: The evaluation of cognitive and control ability is more aligned with legal requirements and behavioral norms of own subject than the evaluation of responsibility.

Competency to stand trial relates directly to legal rights of the appraised individual as well as whether criminal procedure can be carried out smoothly. Foreign scholars have conducted a large number of theoretical researches, and developed a series of standardized evaluation tools. However, the assessment on competency to stand trial has mainly focused on medical criteria in China for a long time, and most cases were judged by forensic psychiatrists\' experience. Recently, Chinese scholars have started the initial research on standardized evaluation. This paper reviews the notion of competency to stand trial, the evaluation criteria, and the assessment tools domestically and abroad. The main focus is on foreign assessment tools, which included three categories. First category includes checklist, self-report questionnaires and sentence-completion tasks. Second category is the interview-based instruments without criterion-based scoring. Last category is the interview-based instruments with criterion-based scoring. This literature may be helpful for further research and standardization on assessment tools of competency to stand trial of mentally disordered offenders.

OBJECTIVE: To seek and ascertain indicators that can be used in the civil competence assessment of the mental disorders involved in compensation of personal injury.
METHODS: A retrospective study was made on the data related to the interviewee\'s mental status assessed by forensic experts during the period from 2003 to 2005 in Institute of Forensic Science, Ministry of Justice, P.R.China. The 6 indicators, including awareness of situation, factual understanding of issues, appreciation of likely consequences, rational manipulation of information, functioning in one\'s own environment, and communication of choice, were graded and statistically analyzed using SPSS 11.5 software.
RESULTS: The 6 indicators correlated well with the assessment of forensic experts ,with the related coefficient between 0.632 and 0.876, and the inter-related coefficient among the 6 indicators between 0.575 and 0.911.
CONCLUSIONS: The 6 indicators could be used for the civil competence assessment and may also be taken as the basis for further standardization and quantification of civil competence.

OBJECTIVE: The purpose of the present paper was to examine the disposition of individuals in Hunan, China who are found not criminally responsible due to a mental disorder or defect.
METHODS: Self-developed questionnaires were mailed to the family members of 240 patients who had received forensic psychiatric evaluations at the forensic psychiatric assessment center of Central South University, between 2001 and 2002.
RESULTS: One hundred and seventy questionnaires were fully completed and returned by the patients\' family members. According to the answers, 64.1% (109 patients) were found not criminally responsible due to a mental disorder or defect. In 87.6% of the cases, a judgement of guilty was in agreement with the psychiatrist\'s recommendation concerning criminal responsibility. A total of 61.8% of the patients found not guilty were discharged to their families and did not receive any further psychiatric treatment.
CONCLUSIONS: In most cases, judicial decisions are consistent with a psychiatrist\'s opinion of criminal responsibility due to a mental disorder or defect. After such adjudication, further psychiatric treatment is often neglected due to the lack of resources and information. Hunan, China must make a continued investment into the availability and quality of outpatient mental health treatment for forensic patients after they have been discharged.

Current research literature contains very few international, cross-cultural comparison studies of persons adjudicated \'Not Criminally Responsible on Account of Mental Disorder\' (NCRMD). This study explores and compares the demographic differences between persons found NCRMD in British Columbia, Canada and Hunan, China. Eight variables such as sex, age, education level, marital status, conviction history, psychiatric history, and index offence are compared between the Canadian and Chinese cohorts. The Canadian and Chinese cohorts were similar in sex and psychiatric history. The divorce rate, educational level, and conviction histories were significantly higher, and the age was significantly older in the Canadian cohort. The Chinese cohort had higher levels of murder and attempted murder index offences. Differences between the two cohorts can be explained in terms of legislative and cultural differences.

OBJECTIVE: To study general rule existed in identification of limited capacity for duties in schizophrenia and put forward some recommendations to the related issues.
METHODS: The data of 31 cases were analyzed based on essential items in identification of limited capacity for duties in Schizophrenia in order to obtain the contribution rate of major variables.
RESULTS: It showed that the contribution rate of from variable 1 to variable 6 was 18.785%, 15.549%, 14.023%, 10.347%, 9.437% and 7.923% respectively, in which the variable 1 reflecting patient\'s recognition of dangerous act was the most important of all variables.
CONCLUSIONS: The limited capacity for duties in Schizophrenia could be divided into three grades.

暂无摘要。