Юридический критерий невменяемости и категория вины с точки зрения науки
|
Полный текст:
Только для подписчиков
|
Рекомендуемое оформление библиографической ссылки:
Ткаченко А.А., Демидова Л.Ю. Юридический критерий невменяемости и категория вины с точки зрения науки // Российский психиатрический журнал. 2025. №2. С. 15-26.
В научном обзоре с целью обоснования основного предмета экспертного судебно-психиатрического исследования и судебной психиатрии как самостоятельной научной дисциплины анализируются история появления в российском уголовном праве современной формулировки юридического критерия невменяемости и законодательные положения об объективности, научной обоснованности и достоверности экспертного вывода. Показывается неразрывная связь между понятиями невменяемости и вины. Разбираются представления уголовного права о виновном и невиновном причинении вреда. Рассматриваются ограничения гуманитарной парадигмы исследования в судебной психиатрии и необходимость подкрепления вывода эксперта объективными данными естественных наук. Анализируются возможности использования современных достижений в области нейронаук для аргументации экспертных решений. В качестве наиболее перспективных для обоснования юридического критерия невменяемости предлагается рассматривать феномены, лежащие в основе понятия вины.
Ключевые слова вина; невменяемость; юридический критерий; судебная нейронаука; предмет судебной психиатрии
1. Schneider K. [Psychiatry and faculties]. Nezavisimyi psikhiatricheskii zhurnal [Independent psychiatric journal]. 2017;(4):14–20. (In Russ.) 2. Morse SJ. The Ethics of Forensic Practice: Reclaiming the Wasteland. J Am Acad Psychiatry Law. 2008;36(2):206–17. PMID: 18583697 3. Tkachenko AA. [The subject of forensic psychiatric examination and translational medicine]. Psikhicheskoe zdorove [Mental Helath]. 2016;14(11):3–14. (In Russ.) 4. Savenko YuS. [To the problem of the subject of forensic-psychiatric examination. response to the discussion of A.A. Tkachenko and S.N. Shishkov]. Psikhicheskoe zdorove [Mental Helath]. 2018;16(3(142)):68–75. (In Russ.) DOI: 10.25557/2074-014X.2018.03.68-75 5. Shishkov SN. [“Provability” and “verifiable” of forensic psychiatric evaluations]. Psikhicheskoe zdorove [Mental Helath]. 2017;15(6(133)):65–71. (In Russ.) 6. Feinberg TsM. Uchenie o vmenyaemosti v razlichnykh shkolakh ugolovnogo prava i v sudebnoi psikhiatrii (1946). In: 100 let sudebnoi psikhiatrii. Antologiya. EV Makushkin, AA Tkachenko, editors. Moscow: FGBU “NMITs PN im. V.P. Serbskogo” Minzdrava Rossii; 2021. p. 66–104. (In Russ.) 7. Entsiklopediya ugolovnogo prava. Vol. 10. Osvobozhdenie ot ugolovnoi otvetstvennosti i nakazaniya. VB Malinin, editor. Saint-Peterburg: Izdanie professora Malinina – SPb GKA; 2008. 880 p. (In Russ.) 8. Entsiklopediya ugolovnogo prava. Vol. 11. Ugolovnaya otvetstvennost nesovershennoletnikh. VB Malinin, editor. Saint-Peterburg: Izdanie professora Malinina – SPb GKA; 2008. 444 p. (In Russ.) 9. Spasennikov BA. Prinuditelnye mery meditsinskogo kharaktera: istoriya, teoriya, praktika. Saint-Petersburg: Yuridicheskii tsentr Press; 2003. 412 p. (In Russ.) 10. Polnyi kurs ugolovnogo prava. Vol. 2. Prestupleniya protiv lichnosti. AI Korobeev, editor. Saint-Peterburg: Yuridicheskii tsentr Press; 2008. 682 p. (In Russ.) 11. Ulozhenie o nakazaniyakh ugolovnykh i ispravitelnykh. Saint-Petersburg: Tipografiya Vtorogo Otdeleniya Sobstvennoi Ego Imperatorskogo Velichestva Kantselyarii; 1845. 898 p. (In Russ.) 12. Ugolovnoe ulozhenie. Saint-Petersburg: Izdanie Senatskoi tipografii; 1903. 144 p. (In Russ.) 13. Maksimova NE, Aleksandrov IO. [The prospective trajectory for psychology evolution. Part II. Organization of the subject field of psychology]. Psikhologicheskii zhurnal [Psikhologicheskii zhurnal]. 2016;37(2):5–18. (In Russ.) 14. Yurevich AV. [Explanation in psychology]. Psikhologicheskii zhurnal [Psikhologicheskii zhurnal]. 2006;27(1):97–106. (In Russ.) 15. Dror IE. Cognitive neuroscience in forensic science: understanding and utilizing the human element. Philos Trans R Soc Lond B Biol Sci. 2015;370(1674):20140255. DOI: 10.1098/RSTB.2014.0255 16. Tolkovyi slovar russkogo yazyka. DV Dmitriev, editor. Moscow: Astrel; AST; 2003. 1582 p. (In Russ.) 17. Neznanov NG, Kotsyubinskii AP, Kotsyubinskii DA. [Crisis of natural-scientific and human approaches in psychiatry]. Obozrenie psikhiatrii i meditsinskoi psikhologii im. VM Bekhtereva [VM Bekhterev review of psychiatry and medical psychology]. 2019;(1):8–15. (In Russ.) DOI: 10.31363/2313-7053-2019-1-8-15 18. Yurevich AV. Estestvennonauchnaya i gumanitarnaya paradigmy v psikhologii. In: Paradigmy v psikhologii: naukovedcheskii analiz. AL Zhuravlev, TV Kornilova, AV Yurevich, editors. Moscow: Institut psikhologii RAN; 2012. p. 13–33. (In Russ.) 19. Tkachenko AA. Sovremennye klassifikatsii i metodologiya sudebno-psikhiatricheskogo diagnoza. In: Sudebnaya psikhiatriya. Aktual'nye problemy. Issue. No 15. VV Vandysh, editor. Mosocw: FGBU “NMITs PN im. V.P. Serbskogo” Minzdrava Rossii; 2018. p. 175–204. (In Russ.) 20. Kandinskii VKh. K voprosu o nevmenyaemosti. Moscow: E.K. Kandinskaya; 1890. 239 p. (In Russ.) 21. Brukhanskii NP. Psikhiatricheskaya ekspertiza v svyazi s nekotorymi voprosami zakonodatel'stva (1926). In: 100 let sudebnoi psikhiatrii. Antologiya. EV Makushkin, AA Tkachenko, editors. Moscow: FGBU “NMITs PN im. V.P. Serbskogo” Minzdrava Rossii; 2021. p. 11–12. (In Russ.) 22. Krasnushkin EK. Kabinet po izucheniyu lichnosti prestupnika i prestupnosti. In: Izuchenie lichnosti prestupnika v SSSR i za granitsei. Moscow: Izdanie Moszdravotdela; 1925. p. 21–35. (In Russ.) 23. Lunts DR. Problema nevmenyaemosti v teorii i praktike sudebnoi psikhiatrii. Moscow: Meditsina; 1966. 236 p. (In Russ.) 24. Zhdan AN. [Formation of national psychology traditions: scientific schools of petersburg (leningrad) and moscow]. Vestnik Sankt-Peterburgskogo universiteta. Seriya 16. Psikhologiya. Pedagogika. 2015;(1):74–80. (In Russ.) 25. Ananev BG. Chelovek kak predmet poznaniya. Saint-Petersburg: Piter; 2018. 288 p. (In Russ.) 26. Ananev BG. Psikhologiya chuvstvennogo poznaniya. Moscow: Izdatelstvo Akademii pedagogicheskikh nauk RSFSR; 1960. 487 p. (In Russ.) 27. Vekker LM. Psikhika i realnost: edinaya teoriya psikhicheskikh protsessov. Moscow: Smysl; Per Se; 2000. 685 p. (In Russ.) 28. Karvasarskii BD, Podsadnyi SA, Chernyavskii VA, Chekhlatyi EI. [Life and activity of VN Myasishchev (to the 120 anniversary from the date of a birth)]. Obozrenie psikhiatrii i meditsinskoi psikhologii im. VM Bekhtereva [VM Bekhterev review of psychiatry and medical psychology]. 2012;(2):107–12. (In Russ.) 29. Vygotskii LS. Psikhika, soznanie, bessoznatelnoe. In: Sobranie sochinenii. Vol. 1. Voprosy teorii i istorii psikhologii. AR Luriya, MG Yaroshevskii, editors. Moscow: Pedagogika; 1982. p. 132–48. (In Russ.) 30. Leontev AN. Deyatelnost. Soznanie. Lichnost. Moscow: Smysl; Izdatelskii tsentr “Akademiya”; 2004. 352 p. (In Russ.) 31. Zeigarnik BV. Patopsikhologiya. Osnovy klinicheskoi diagnostiki i praktiki. Moscow: Eksmo; 2008. 368 p. (In Russ.) 32. Ward T, Wilshire C, Jackson L. The contribution of neuroscience to forensic explanation. Psychology, Crime & Law. 2018;24(3):195–209. DOI: 10.1080/1068316X.2018.1427746 33. Polubinskaya SV. [Use of neuroscience in criminal law doctrine and criminal sentencing]. Trudy Instituta gosudarstva i prava Rossiiskoi akademii nauk [Proceedings of the Institute of State and Law of the RAS]. 2019;14(5):9–37. (In Russ.) DOI: 10.35427/2073-4522-2019-14-5-polubinskaya 34. The Wiley Blackwell Handbook of Forensic Neuroscience. AR Beech, AJ Carter, RE Mann, P Rotshtein, editors. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley Blackwell; 2018. 1032 p. 35. Forensic neuroscience and violence: a forensic psychological and neurophychological perspective. JM Fabian, editor. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley-Blackwell; 2024. 560 p. 36. Baum ML. The neuroethics of biomarkers: What the development of bioprediction means for moral responsibility, justice, and the nature of mental disorder. New York, NY: Oxford University Press; 2016. 206 p. 37. A primer on criminal law and neuroscience. SJ Morse, AL Roskies, editors. New York, NY: Oxford University Press; 2013. 320 p. 38. Eisenbarth H. Forensic neuroscience: starting with understanding basic processes. J R Soc N Z. 2021;51(1):41–50. DOI: 10.1080/03036758.2020.1796104 39. Insel T, Cuthbert B, Garvey M, et al. Research domain criteria (RDoC): toward a new classification framework for research on mental disorders. Am J Psychiatry. 2010;167(7):748–51. DOI: 10.1176/APPI.AJP.2010.09091379 40. Hutten JC, van Horn JE, Hoppenbrouwers SS, et al. Neuropsychological assessment of aggressive offenders: a Delphi consensus study. Front Psychol. 2024;15:1328839. DOI: 10.3389/FPSYG.2024.1328839 41. Morley RH, Jantz P, Fulton CL, Trujillo LT. Objective self-awareness theory and violence: A brain network perspective. Neurosci Behav Physiol. 2023;53(4):636–53. DOI: 10.1007/S11055-023-01421-9 42. Luriya AR. Osnovy neiropsikhologii. Moscow: Izdatelstvo Moskovskogo universiteta; 1973. 376 p. (In Russ.) 43. Pernu TK, Elzein N. From Neuroscience to Law: Bridging the Gap. Front Psychol. 2020;11:1862. DOI: 10.3389/FPSYG.2020.01862 44. Soon CS, Brass M, Heinze HJ, Haynes JD. Unconscious determinants of free decisions in the human brain. Nat Neurosci. 2008;11(5):543–5. DOI: 10.1038/NN.2112 45. Libet B, Wright EW, Feinstein B, Pearl DK. Subjective referral of the timing for a conscious sensory experience: a functional role for the somatosensory specific projection system in man. Brain. 1979;102(1):193–224. DOI: 10.1093/BRAIN/102.1.193 46. Kornhuber HH, Deecke L. Brain potential changes in voluntary and passive movements in humans: readiness potential and reafferent potentials. Pflugers Arch. 2016;468(7):1115–24. DOI: 10.1007/S00424-016-1852-3 47. Kotchoubey B, Tretter F, Braun HA, et al. Methodological problems on the way to integrative human neuroscience. Front Integr Neurosci. 2016;10:41. DOI: 10.3389/FNINT.2016.00041 48. Haynes JD, Sakai K, Rees G, et al. Reading hidden intentions in the human brain. Curr Biol. 2007;17(4):323–8. DOI: 10.1016/J.CUB.2006.11.072 49. Greene JD, Nystrom LE, Engell AD, et al. The neural bases of cognitive conflict and control in moral judgment. Neuron. 2004;44(2):389–400. DOI: 10.1016/j.neuron.2004.09.027 50. Gazzaniga MS. The law and neuroscience. Neuron. 2008;60(3):412–5. DOI: 10.1016/J.NEURON.2008.10.022 51. Sajous-Turner A, Anderson NE, Widdows M, et al. Aberrant brain gray matter in murderers. Brain Imaging Behav. 2020;14(5):2050–61. DOI: 10.1007/S11682-019-00155-Y 52. Cantor JM, Kabani N, Christensen BK, et al. Cerebral white matter deficiencies in pedophilic men. J Psychiatr Res. 2008;42(3):167–83. DOI: 10.1016/J.JPSYCHIRES.2007.10.013 53. Carlisi CO, Moffitt TE, Knodt AR, et al. Associations between life-course-persistent antisocial behaviour and brain structure in a population-representative longitudinal birth cohort. Lancet Psychiatry. 2020;7(3):245–53. DOI: 10.1016/S2215-0366(20)30002-X 54. Ilin EP. Differentsialnaya psikhofiziologiya muzhchiny i zhenshchiny. Saint-Petersburg: Piter; 2002. 544 p. (In Russ.) 55. Kheilig M. On, ona i mozg: vzglyad neirobiologa na nashi skhodstva i razlichiya. Moscow: Eksmo; 2023. 256 p. (In Russ.) 56. Harlow JM. Recovery from the passage of an iron bar through the head. Hist Psychiatry. 1993;4(14):274–81. DOI: 10.1177/0957154X9300401407 57. Harlow JM. Passage of an iron rod through the head. 1848. J Neuropsychiatry Clin Neurosci. 1999;11(2):281–3. DOI: 10.1176/JNP.11.2.281 58. Burns JM, Swerdlow RH. Right orbitofrontal tumor with pedophilia symptom and constructional apraxia sign. Arch Neurol. 2003;60(3):437–40. DOI: 10.1001/ARCHNEUR.60.3.437 59. Greene J, Cohen J. For the law, neuroscience changes nothing and everything. Trans R Soc Lond B Biol Sci. 2004;359(1451):1775–85. DOI: 10.1098/RSTB.2004.1546 60. Morse SJ. Neuroscience, Free Will, and Criminal Responsibility. In: Free Will and the Brain: Neuroscientific, Philosophical, and Legal Perspectives. W Glannon, editor. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 2015. p. 251–86. DOI: 10.1017/CBO9781139565820.014
Метрики статей
Metrics powered by PLOS ALM