Edited by Mike McConville and Eva Pils
Chapter 12: Who should be entitled to initiate a mental examination process? An empirical perspective
Mental examination, or psychiatric evaluation, in the legal context is a procedure to ascertain whether or not the defendant has a mental disability (or disorder) to the degree that his/her criminal responsibility is totally excused or at least diminished. As an exempting or mitigating factor, an insanity plea may be the most powerful defence if it prevails. Hence, insanity defences are frequently raised in criminal cases in China, especially in capital or major cases. However, it seems the principle of non facit reum nisi mens sit rea (‘the act does not make a person guilty unless the mind is also guilty’) recognized in criminal law in China merely serves as an empty promise in some cases because of a lack of procedural safeguards (Guo, 2010). Of various loopholes in criminal procedure law and mental health law, the most frequently debated question is who should be entitled to initiate the mental examination process when the defence brings up the insanity issue. The nationwide debates around this question started from 2006 and recurred through 2009 in response to a series of high profile criminal cases.
You are not authenticated to view the full text of this chapter or article.
Elgaronline requires a subscription or purchase to access the full text of books or journals. Please login through your library system or with your personal username and password on the homepage.
Non-subscribers can freely search the site, view abstracts/ extracts and download selected front matter and introductory chapters for personal use.
Your library may not have purchased all subject areas. If you are authenticated and think you should have access to this title, please contact your librarian.