The practical issues of the current institutional measures for the identification and treatment of mental disorders in R.O.C. have long been an important issue, and the importance of mental identification is even more difficult to overstate. In order to balance the rights and interests of defendants with mental disorders and protect social security, it isnecessary to identify defendants with mental disorders involved in criminal crimes as to their ability to take responsibility when committing criminal acts. A complete evaluation should be conducted before the court orders them to be under guardianship measure. A person is not responsible for criminal conduct if at the time of such conduct as a result of mental disorder(s) or impairment to the extent which the person’s criminal responsibility can be excused or diminished. While the offense is not punishable, the provision on custodial protection under the Criminal Code allows judicial authorities to detain the person in psychiatric hospitals or other comparable institutions for medical treatment or correctional treatment, provided that evidence is sufficient to prove that the person is likely to reoffend and his behavior may result in risk to public safety. The purpose of the provision is to minimize risk of reoffending and ensure safety society. As the nature of custodial protection is a protective measure that imposes restrictions on personal freedom, its legal requirements and decision-making process are required to comply strictly with the rules of proportionality and due process ,which are encapsulated in the legislative purpose of Article 8 of the Constitution. However, it is not without doubt whether the current treatment system in R.O.C can effectively implement the goals intended to be achieved by the system.
To explore the current status and problems of guardianship punishment in R.O.C, in addition to general criminal trial procedures, since the R.O.C has officially implemented the Civil Judge Law from 2023, thisarticle also provides information on the issues that may be involved inthe participation of national judges in the criminal trials of defendants with mental disorders.
In addition, judicial psychiatric hospitals specially set up for defendants with mental disorders should be positioned to focus on treatment or guardianship, which is an important core. In addition, for defendants with mental disorders who do not need to receive institutional treatment and leave judicial mental hospitals, this article puts forward the concept of how to deal with diversified treatment after discharge, hoping to learn from the practices of Germany and Japan to make our country realistic. A more complete system will help defendants with mental disorders successfully return to society.
