Objective T o understand the assessm ent on the criminal responsibility of drug-induced m ental disorders and judicial experts’ opinions. Methods T he judicial experts from institutes of forensic psychi-atry in Shanghai were selected. T hey were asked to finish a self-m ade questionnaire of assessm ent on the criminal responsibility of drug-induced m ental disorders by letters and visits. Results Most of experts knewthe special regulation,“not suitable for evaluation” towards the criminal responsibility of drug-in-duced m ental disorders of the guideline prom ulgated by Ministry of Justice. B efore and after the guide-line was issued, no expert m ade a no-responsibility opinion in such cases. After the guideline was issued, som e experts m ade a full-responsibility or lim ited-responsibility opinion in such cases. T here was a little disagreem ent am ong the experts in the case that the crime was unrelated with m ental sym ptom s or the criminals used drugs even though he knewit could induced insanity. B ut there were still m any obvious disagreem ents am ong experts in the case that crime was related to such sym ptom s and person was no ability to debate. Most experts agreed to settle the disagreem ents with im proved legislative perfection. Conclusion Most experts are not strictly com plying with the assessm ent guidelines during their practice, and there is still an obvious disagreem ent towards the criminal responsibility of drug-induced m ental disorders.%目的：了解毒品所致精神障碍者刑事责任能力评定现状及鉴定人对此类案件的观点。方法自编《毒品所致精神障碍者责任能力评定调查表》，选择上海市法医精神病鉴定机构的鉴定人为调查对象，通过信访方式收集调查表。结果大部分鉴定人知晓《精神障碍者刑事责任能力评定指南》（简称《指南》）对毒品所致精神障碍者刑事责任能力评定做出了“不宜评定”的特别规定。《指南》颁布前后，所有的鉴定人均未做出过无刑事责任能力的评定；《指南》颁布后，部分鉴定人仍做出完全或限定刑事责任能力的评定。对作案与症状无关、明知吸毒可致精神错乱却放纵吸毒的案例，鉴定人分歧较小。对作案与症状相关、辨控能力丧失的案例，鉴定人分歧较明显。为消除此类案件刑事责任能力评定的分歧，完善立法认同率最高。结论目前在此类案件鉴定实践中，大部分鉴定人并未严格按照《指南》规定执行，刑事责任能力评定仍存在明显分歧。
展开▼
