Crafts

Institutionalized Forensic Patients in China: A Perspective of Criminal Procedure

Description
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new
Categories
Published
of 4
All materials on our website are shared by users. If you have any questions about copyright issues, please report us to resolve them. We are always happy to assist you.
Related Documents
Share
Transcript
  Institutionalized Forensic Patients in China: A Perspective of Criminal ProcedureAuthor(s): Zhiyuan GuoSource: Proceedings of the Annual Meeting (American Society of International Law)  , Vol. 109, Adapting to a Rapidly Changing World (2015), pp. 86-88Published by: Cambridge University Press on behalf of the American Society of International LawStable URL: https://www.jstor.org/stable/10.5305/procannmeetasil.109.2015.0086 JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org. Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at https://about.jstor.org/terms Cambridge University Press  and American Society of International Law   are collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Proceedings of the Annual Meeting (American Society of International Law)  This content downloaded from 182.48.102.83 on Thu, 17 Jan 2019 02:17:05 UTC All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms  86  ASIL Proceedings, 2015 Mental health professionals do not accommodate any support to enable a patient to exercisehis/her legal capacity, though the general comment on Article 12 by the CRPD committeerequires it. Currently some Japanese psychiatrists insist that the CRPD is not applied topsychiatry, because psychiatry does not treat a person with mental disabilities, but a personwith mental illness or disorders. They try to avoid being bound by the CRPD. However theirinterpretation is wrong, because a person with a mental illness or disorder can be includedinto ‘‘persons with disabilities’’ since the preamble of the CRPD provides that ‘‘disabilityis an evolving concept and that disability results from the interaction between persons withimpairments and attitudinal and environmental barriers.’’ If the CRPD does not cover thisfield, its historical significance will be lost.There is a huge discrepancy between reality and the CRPD in Japan, mostly in the fieldof offenders with psychosocial disabilities. This trend derives from and is intensified bydistorted social recognition and a non-reflective wayof thinking on persons with psychosocialdisabilities,asMichaelPerlinpointedoutspecifically.Thosearesanism,heuristics,pretextual-ity, and ordinary common sense. 1 It is extremely critical for persons with psychosocial disabilities and their advocates toutilize the CRPD to promote, protect, and ensure the full and equal enjoyment of all humanrights and fundamental freedoms by all persons with disabilities, and to promote respect fortheir inherent dignity. Institutionalized Forensic Patients in China:A Perspective of Criminal Procedure  By Zhiyuan Guo * Although China ratified the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (CRPD)in 2008, there remains a large gap regarding the protection of rights for institutionalizedforensic patients.The Criminal Law of China has long recognized insanity as an exempting or mitigatingfactor of criminal responsibility; 1 however, procedural safeguards for forensic patients havenot been granted until the amendment to the Criminal Procedure Law (CPL) in 2012.First, forensic patients have acquired the right to free counsel. Second, while psychiatrictestimony was almost always presented only by deposition in the past, the 2012 CPL requiresthat expert witnesses must take the stand where: 1) both parties have differing opinionsregarding the expert testimony; and, 2) the court deems it necessary for the expert witnessto appear before the court. More importantly, expert testimony will be inadmissible if theexpert witness declines to take the stand after being subpoenaed by the court. 2 This provisionhas established a hearsay rule for expert testimony in cases where the court finds it necessary 1 Seegenerally ,MichaelL.Perlin,APrescriptionforDignity:RethinkingCriminalJusticeandMentalDisability Law  (2013). * Professor of Law at China University of Political Science and Law. 1 Article 18 of the Criminal Law of the PRC states: ‘‘If a mental patient causes harmful consequences at a timewhen he is unable to recognize or control his own conduct, upon verification and confirmation through legalprocedure, he shall not bear criminal responsibility. . . . If a mental patient who has not completely lost the abilityof recognizing or controlling his own conduct commits a crime, he shall bear criminal responsibility; however, hemay be given a lighter or mitigated punishment.’’ Zhong hua ren min gong he guo xing fa [Criminal Law],  availableat   http://www.cecc.gov/pages/newLaws/criminalLawENG.php. 2 See  Amendments to the Criminal Procedure Law (CPL), art. 187(3) (2012),  available at   http://lawprofessors.ty-pepad.com/files/130101-crim-pro-law-as-amended-en.pdf. This content downloaded from 182.48.102.83 on Thu, 17 Jan 2019 02:17:05 UTC All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms  The Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities  87to call the expert witness to testify, by which the defense acquires the opportunity to confrontthe other party’s psychiatrist in the courtroom in criminal cases involving insanity. Third,because defense attorneys do not have psychiatric expertise, assistance from a psychiatristis necessary to fulfill the task of cross-examining the prosecution’s expert. The 2012 CPLpermits the defense to have their own psychiatrists to assist counsel in confronting opposingexperts. This provision makes it more meaningful to ask the expert witness to take the standbecause both parties can conduct substantial cross-examination with such assistance.Finally, the 2012 CPL brings compulsory treatment under the rule of law. Compulsorytreatment involves not only the deprivation of liberty, but also involves compelled medicaltreatment in the psychiatric hospital, thus it should be regarded as a crucial measure involvingcitizens’ fundamental rights. For the first time, the 2012 CPL sets out the scope, procedures,and supervision mechanisms for compulsory psychiatric treatment in criminal cases:1. The 2012 CPL lays out three criteria for compulsory treatment—mentally ill personswho: (a) committed a violent crime, endangered public security or caused death orinjury to others; (b) were determined to be not guilty by reason of insanity after amental health assessment in accordance with law; and, (c) pose a continuing risk endangering public security may be compelled to receive medical treatment in adesignated psychiatric hospital. 3 2. The 2012 CPL sets up judicial review mechanisms for determination of compulsorytreatment, emphasizing the principle that this decision involving grave interests of the subject of application should be made by a panel of judges through a hearing. 4 3. The 2012 CPL adds a periodical evaluation and judicial review mechanism for therelease of those with mental illness subject to compulsory treatment.4. The 2012 CPL recognizes the importance of rights protection for forensic patientsfacing or under compulsory treatment. For example, when the accused, the victimsof crime, their legal representatives or near relatives do not accept the decision of compulsory treatment, they are entitled to file a complaint for reconsideration withthe next highest-level court. 5 The institutionalized forensic patient and his familymembers can apply for removal of compulsory treatment.5. The 2012 CPL also strengthens the prosecutor’s supervision over both the impositionand implementation of compulsory treatment.  6 China  has  made significant progress in applying the international standards to the criminalmentalhealthlegislation.However,therearestillgapsbetweendomesticlawandinternational 3 The psychiatric service system of China is institutionally complex. It is uncertain how many administrativesystems (Xi Tong) have their own psychiatric facilities, but the great mass of mental health services are providedby four departments. The largest mental health service system is governed by the Ministry of Health and its localbureaus (accessible to urban and rural citizens who have health insurance, which covers their medical costs). Thesecond largest is managed by local departments of the Ministry of Civil Affairs (serving those who are jobless orhomeless and those whose families are otherwise too poor to pay for their care). The third largest belongs to themilitary, operating primarily for military personnel and their families. In recent years a number of these hospitalshave begun providing care on a fee-for-service basis to local citizens. Finally, there is a system managed by theprovincial or municipal departments of public security, called ‘‘Ankang Hospitals’’ that provide care for mentallyill criminal offenders.  See  Yang Shao et al.,  Current Legislation on Admission of Mentally Ill Patients in China, 33  Int’l J. L. & Psychiatry  52 (2010). 4 Article 286 of the CPL provides: ‘‘When the people’s court admits an application for compulsory medicaltreatment, it should form a judicial panel for the hearing.’’ 5 CPL,  supra  note 2, art. 287. 6  Id.  art. 289. This content downloaded from 182.48.102.83 on Thu, 17 Jan 2019 02:17:05 UTC All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms  88  ASIL Proceedings, 2015 standards. First, the defendants do not acquire the right to initiate mental examinations, onlyofficial agencies such as the police, prosecutors and judges can decide to conduct them.Second, once the right to free counsel is guaranteed for forensic patients, further effortmust be made to ensure effective counsel to protect their rights not only because of theirpowerlessness and vulnerability, but also because of the existence of ‘‘sanism,’’ a termdescribing the irrational prejudice towards persons with mental disabilities. 7 Third, based onrationales similar to those justifying the legal aid system, such as equal protection, dueprocess, and meaningful access to justice, indigent forensic patients should be entitled topsychiatric assistance at state expense. Fourth, it is an international norm 8 that forensicpatients are entitled to the least restrictive alternative course of treatment even when institu-tionalized. This right should also be granted in China. A reflection of the right to the leastrestrictive alternative treatment is a community integration principle. The 2012 CPL doesnot create any alternative treatment model to institution-based treatment. Considering theshortage of beds in Ankang hospitals (where the forensic patients are committed) across thecountry, psychiatric probation can be a promising supplement to the institution-based treat-ment model. Psychiatric probation can either be used as a post-release treatment plan, or beoffered to forensic patients as a less restrictive treatment option. 7 See MichaelL.Perlin,InternationalHumanRightsandMentalDisabilityLaw:WhentheSilencedAre Heard  34 (2011). 8 The Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities provides: ‘‘States Parties shall ensure that if personswith disabilities are deprived of their liberty through any process, they are, on an equal basis with others, entitledtoguarantees inaccordancewith international humanrights law and shallbe treated incompliance with theobjectivesand principles of this Convention, including by provision of   reasonable accommodation ’’ (emphasis added).‘‘Reasonable accommodation’’ means necessary and appropriate modification and adjustments not imposing adisproportionate or undue burden, where needed in a particular case, to ensure to persons with disabilities theenjoyment or exercise on an equal basis with others of all human rights and fundamental freedoms.  See  Conventionon the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, G.A. Res. 61/106, U.N. Doc. A/RES/61/106, arts. 2, 14 (Dec. 13, 2006). This content downloaded from 182.48.102.83 on Thu, 17 Jan 2019 02:17:05 UTC All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
Search
Similar documents
View more...
Tags
Related Search
We Need Your Support
Thank you for visiting our website and your interest in our free products and services. We are nonprofit website to share and download documents. To the running of this website, we need your help to support us.

Thanks to everyone for your continued support.

No, Thanks
SAVE OUR EARTH

We need your sign to support Project to invent "SMART AND CONTROLLABLE REFLECTIVE BALLOONS" to cover the Sun and Save Our Earth.

More details...

Sign Now!

We are very appreciated for your Prompt Action!

x