How to evaluate mental illness in criminal cases handled by judicial organs and who bears the costs

It shall be borne by the public security organs.

The latest proclamation of the Ministry of Public Security on the procedures for handling administrative cases clearly states that the medical evaluation of mental illness should be conducted by a hospital designated by the provincial people.

1. The person being evaluated.

In accordance with this provision, if a mentally ill person commits an illegal act when he is unable to recognize or control his own behavior, he shall not be given administrative punishment, but shall be ordered to be strictly supervised by his guardian. Where intermittent mentally ill persons commit illegal acts when they are mentally normal, they shall be given administrative punishments. Where mentally ill persons who have not completely lost the capacity to recognize or control their own conduct have illegal conduct, they shall be given administrative punishments, but the administrative punishment may be mitigated or commuted.

2. Appraisal conditions.

This procedure also stipulates that if it is necessary to conduct an appraisal of specialized technical issues in an administrative case in order to ascertain the facts of the case, the public security organ shall appoint or hire a person or institution with specialized knowledge to conduct the appraisal. Public security organs shall provide the necessary conditions for evaluations, promptly send original materials such as relevant samples and comparison samples, introduce circumstances related to the evaluation, and clearly state the issues that the evaluation needs to be resolved, but must not imply or compel the evaluators and evaluation bodies to make certain appraisal conclusions.

3. Appraisal fees.

In accordance with this provision, where the suspect or victim has objections to the evaluation conclusion, he or she may submit an application for a new evaluation, and a new evaluation is to be conducted after approval by the responsible person at a public security organ at the county level or above. Applications for a new evaluation are limited to one time, and the public security organs shall separately appoint or hire an evaluator or evaluation body. In accordance with regulations, the public security organs shall bear the cost of the appraisal.

If there is a change in the appraisal conclusion, the public security organ shall bear the cost of the appraisal; If the appraisal conclusion is not changed, the appraisal fee shall be borne by the applicant for re-appraisal.

The judicial evaluation of mental illness in public prosecution cases is to be borne by the judicial organs, and individuals do not bear the costs. If it is a private criminal prosecution case, then it shall be submitted by the claimant, and the appraisal fee shall be borne by the claimant.

Forensic evaluations of mental illness are to be conducted by institutions with national forensic evaluations. The judicial organs are to designate an appraisal body to conduct the appraisal.

Legal Analysis: Where a mentally ill person causes harmful results when he is unable to recognize or control his own behavior, and it is confirmed through legal procedures, he does not bear criminal responsibility, but his family or guardian shall be ordered to strictly supervise and provide medical treatment; When necessary, by ** compulsory medical treatment.

Legal basis: Civil Procedure Law of the People's Republic of China

Article 76: Parties may apply to the people's court for an appraisal on the specialized issue of the skill of ascertaining facts. Where the parties apply for an appraisal, the parties are to negotiate to determine a qualified evaluator; and where negotiation fails, the people's court is to appoint one. Where the parties have not applied for an evaluation, and the people's court finds that an evaluation is necessary for a specialized issue, it shall retain a qualified evaluator to conduct the evaluation.

Article 77: Evaluators have the right to learn about the materials needed to conduct the evaluation, and when necessary, may question the parties and witnesses. The evaluator shall submit a written evaluation opinion and sign or affix a seal to the appraisal document.

Article 78: Where parties have objections to an evaluation opinion or the people's court finds that it is necessary for an evaluator to appear in court, the evaluator shall appear in court to testify. Where upon notice from the people's court, the evaluator refuses to appear in court to testify, the evaluation opinion must not be the basis for determining the facts; The party who paid the appraisal fee may request a refund of the appraisal fee.

Article 79: Parties may apply to the people's court to notify persons with specialized knowledge to appear in court and submit opinions on evaluation opinions or professional issues made by evaluators.

Article 80: In the inquest of missing physical evidence or the scene, the inquest person must present the people's court's identification, and invite the local basic-level organization or the party's unit to send someone to participate. The parties or their adult family members shall be present, and where they refuse to appear, it does not impact the conduct of the inquest. Relevant units and individuals have the obligation to protect the scene and assist in the inquest work on the basis of the notice of the people's court.

The inquest personnel shall make a record of the circumstances and results of the inquest, and the inquest personnel, the parties, and the invited participants shall sign or affix a seal.

Legal analysis: 1. The center shall complete the appraisal work within the specified time limit after general acceptance, and issue a complete and standardized appraisal report.

2. Before the center conducts the appraisal, the appraiser shall read the case file in advance, understand the facts of the case, and make necessary verifications. The diagnosis of the disease should be clear and scientifically based, and the assessment of various legal abilities and causal relationships should be accurate.

3. The forensic evaluation of psychiatric illness shall be presided over by the director of the office or the personnel designated by the center, and there shall be no less than three persons participating in the forensic appraisal (of which no less than two evaluators shall be appraised).

4. After a forensic psychiatric evaluation conclusion is made, the forensic psychiatric evaluators participating in the evaluation shall sign the evaluation opinion, and if there is a disagreement, it shall be recorded in the case file.

5. The conclusion of the forensic evaluation of psychiatric illness shall be made in the form of an "Opinion on the Review of Appraisal Documentary Evidence"; It shall take effect after being signed by the appraiser and stamped with the official seal of the Center.

6. Forensic psychiatric evaluation work shall be completed within the legally-prescribed time limit, and the "Opinion on the Review of Appraisal Documentary Evidence" shall be sent to the entrusting organ or the unit applying for the evaluation.

Legal basis: Criminal Procedure Law of the People's Republic of China Article 19: Where public security organs, procuratorial organs, judicial organs, prison management organs or suspects and other case-handling organs (hereinafter referred to as "case-handling organs"), as well as other units and individuals, are involved in the need to conduct a judicial evaluation of mental illness, they shall submit a commission or application to the provincial, autonomous region, or directly governed municipality judicial evaluation committee for mental illness. Case-handling organs, as well as other units and individuals, may also directly submit representations or applications to other provinces, autonomous regions, or directly governed municipality forensic evaluation committees for mental illness.

The evaluation of mental illness in criminal proceedings shall be conducted by a specialized forensic evaluation institution. Evaluations are to be conducted from several aspects, such as determining whether the person being evaluated suffers from mental illness, what kind of mental illness they have, their mental state at the time of committing the harmful acts, the relationship between the mental illness and the harmful acts they committed, as well as whether they have the capacity for criminal responsibility, whether they have the capacity to litigate, and the mental state of the person being evaluated while serving their sentences.

Code of Criminal Procedure

Article 148.

The investigating organs shall inform the criminal suspect or victim of the evaluation opinions to be used as evidence. If the criminal suspect or victim submits an application, the evaluation may be supplemented or re-evaluated.

Code of Criminal Procedure

Article 149.

The period during which a criminal suspect is evaluated for a seizure is not included in the time limit for handling the case.

Legal Analysis: Where a mentally ill person commits an illegal act when he is unable to recognize or control his or her own behavior, he shall not be given administrative punishment, but his guardian shall be ordered to strictly supervise and supervise him. Where intermittent mentally ill persons are judged to have violated the law while they are mentally normal, they shall be given administrative punishments.

Psychiatric persons who have not completely lost the capacity to recognize or control their own conduct shall be given an administrative punishment, but the administrative punishment may be mitigated or commuted.

Legal basis: Administrative Litigation Law of the People's Republic of China

Article 1: This Law is formulated on the basis of the Constitution so as to ensure that the people's courts hear administrative cases fairly and promptly, to resolve administrative disputes, to protect the lawful rights and interests of citizens, legal persons, and other organizations, and to supervise the lawful exercise of authority by administrative organs.

"Administrative acts" as used in the preceding paragraph includes administrative acts taken by organizations authorized by laws, regulations, or rules.

Article 3: People's courts shall safeguard citizens, legal persons, and other organizations' right to sue, and accept administrative cases that should be accepted in accordance with law.

Administrative organs and their staffs must not interfere with or obstruct the people's courts' acceptance of administrative cases.

The responsible person for the administrative organ that is the subject of the lawsuit shall appear in court to respond to the lawsuit. and where they are unable to appear in court, they shall entrust the corresponding staff of the administrative organ to appear in court.

Article 4: People's courts exercise adjudication power independently in administrative cases in accordance with law, and are not to be interfered with by administrative organs, social groups, or individuals.

The people's courts are to establish administrative tribunals to hear administrative cases.