司法心理與精神鑑定內容，應包含項目與倫理之研究

The Study of Content and Ethics in Forensic Psychological or Psychiatric Assessment

近年國內屢發生精神疑似異常者殺童或殺人的案件，然而精神科醫師與心理師之司法鑑定結果常不同且受社會疑慮。本研究之目的在釐清司法精神或心理鑑定之內容與倫理要求為何，及不同專家對其之共識為何。本研究以問卷法詢問具鑑定專業身份者，對中外文獻之內容要求、倫理要求、終極問題等尚有爭議事項之同意程度。共有臨床心理師31人、諮商心理師35人、精神科醫師12人參與研究。研究發現，鑑定內容中以「鑑定須含鑑定目的」在三類專業者均最被支持。而鑑定細項中以「鑑定不可過度推論」與「鑑定須維持中立」為三類專業者最傾向支持。至於鑑定報告能否寫「有無罪責能力」之終極問題，三類專業者支持度不一，諮商與臨床心理偏向支持，而精神科醫師偏向不支持。倫理細項上以「學會須有倫理委員會訂出原則」、「鑑定者須參加學會之繼續教育學分」被高度支持，而「國家應規範法院對鑑定不同意者須依多數之意見」也都得到正面支持。建議也在文末呈現。

In recent years, there have been repeated cases of homicide by the persons with suspected abnormalities in Taiwan. Therefore, the court asked psychiatrists and psychologists to make forensic assessment. However, the results of assessments are often different and subject to social concerns. The purpose of this study is to clarify the content and ethical requirements of forensic assessment, and the consensus among different experts. In this study, questionnaires were used to ask the appraisal professionals about the degree of agreement between the content requirements and ethical requirements among literature in Chinese and in English, and controversial issues such as ultimate problems. A total of 31 clinical psychologists, 35 counseling psychologists, and 12 psychiatrists participated in the study. The study found that ''identification must include the purpose of the appraisal'' in the appraisal content is most supported by the three types of professionals. The three types of professionals also most support on ''the identification must not be over-inferred'' and ''the identification must be neutral.'' As for the ultimate question of whether the assessment report can be written without guilt or not, the three types of professionals have varying degrees of support. Counseling and clinical psychologists favor support, while psychiatrists prefer not support. In terms of ethics, ''the society must have a principle set by the ethics committee'', ''appraisers must participate in the society's continuing education credits'' are highly supported, and ''the state should regulate the court's opinion that those who disagree with the assessment must agree to the majority''. Suggestions are also presented at the end of the article.