Réflexions critiques sur les notions d’abolition et d’altération de la faculté à discerner

IF 0.1 Q4 MEDICINE, LEGAL
Mathieu Garcia
{"title":"Réflexions critiques sur les notions d’abolition et d’altération de la faculté à discerner","authors":"Mathieu Garcia","doi":"10.1016/j.meddro.2020.12.001","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><p>Inasmuch as the constitution of the <em>mens rea</em> of any offence remains suspended to its integrity, the capacity for discernment represents a condition of accountability whose definition responds to issues that are as much technical – with respect to psychiatric and psychological penal expertise – as they are theoretical – with respect to our conception of criminal responsibility and the psychological prerequisites that underlie it. Now, the fact is that since its introduction in 1992 with article 122–1 of the Penal Code, this notion of discernment is characterized by a certain conceptual inconsistency, giving rise to a damaging plurality of meanings making the verb <em>discern</em> the condensed version of a heterogeneous network of distinct psychological functions. The polysemic term of <em>discernment</em> thus gives rise to a fundamental indetermination as to the nature of the faculty that must be examined in order to decide on its abolition or its preservation at the moment of the act. This is not without favouring the appearance and persistence of arbitrary interpretations, and consequently discordant expert conclusions. Even more problematic, however, is the idea of an <em>alteration</em> of discernment, given the irreducible discrepancy between the continuous nature of an alteration and the discontinuous nature of the conclusion to which the agent is subject, in that the legal demand requires a decision – in a discretization of what is continuous – between the presence and absence of <em>something</em> that is lacking. We will in fact show in what way this concept of alteration as it applies to discernment tends to be either meaningless, or redundant – and therefore useless – in relation to that of abolition. So much so that the only conceivable solution to maintain a certain gradation of degrees of non-accountability seems to consist in having to specify the different types of abolition of discernment potentially observed, and then to propose a hierarchization according to their greater or lesser compatibility with the conservation of a criminal responsibility. .</p></div>","PeriodicalId":41275,"journal":{"name":"Medecine & Droit","volume":"2021 167","pages":"Pages 25-29"},"PeriodicalIF":0.1000,"publicationDate":"2021-04-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1016/j.meddro.2020.12.001","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Medecine & Droit","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1246739120301263","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"MEDICINE, LEGAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Inasmuch as the constitution of the mens rea of any offence remains suspended to its integrity, the capacity for discernment represents a condition of accountability whose definition responds to issues that are as much technical – with respect to psychiatric and psychological penal expertise – as they are theoretical – with respect to our conception of criminal responsibility and the psychological prerequisites that underlie it. Now, the fact is that since its introduction in 1992 with article 122–1 of the Penal Code, this notion of discernment is characterized by a certain conceptual inconsistency, giving rise to a damaging plurality of meanings making the verb discern the condensed version of a heterogeneous network of distinct psychological functions. The polysemic term of discernment thus gives rise to a fundamental indetermination as to the nature of the faculty that must be examined in order to decide on its abolition or its preservation at the moment of the act. This is not without favouring the appearance and persistence of arbitrary interpretations, and consequently discordant expert conclusions. Even more problematic, however, is the idea of an alteration of discernment, given the irreducible discrepancy between the continuous nature of an alteration and the discontinuous nature of the conclusion to which the agent is subject, in that the legal demand requires a decision – in a discretization of what is continuous – between the presence and absence of something that is lacking. We will in fact show in what way this concept of alteration as it applies to discernment tends to be either meaningless, or redundant – and therefore useless – in relation to that of abolition. So much so that the only conceivable solution to maintain a certain gradation of degrees of non-accountability seems to consist in having to specify the different types of abolition of discernment potentially observed, and then to propose a hierarchization according to their greater or lesser compatibility with the conservation of a criminal responsibility. .

对废除和改变辨别能力概念的批判性思考
由于任何犯罪行为的犯罪目的的构成仍然是悬而不决的,辨别能力代表了一种问责的条件,其定义对我们的刑事责任概念和作为其基础的心理先决条件的技术性问题- -就精神病学和心理刑法专门知识而言- -和理论上的问题作出反应。现在,事实是,自从1992年刑法典第122-1条引入以来,辨别力的概念就以某种概念上的不一致为特征,产生了破坏性的多重含义,使得动词辨别力成为由不同心理功能组成的异质网络的浓缩版本。因此,辨别力一词的多义性就产生了一种根本的不确定性,即对于这种能力的性质必须加以考察,以便在行为发生时决定它的废除或保留。这并非不支持武断解释的出现和持续存在,从而导致不一致的专家结论。然而,更有问题的是,鉴于变化的连续性与主体所处结论的不连续性之间存在着不可简化的差异,即法律要求——在连续性的离散化中——在缺乏的东西的存在和不存在之间做出决定,因此,识别的改变这一概念就更成问题了。事实上,我们将表明,这种变化的概念,如果应用于辨别,与扬弃的概念相比,究竟是怎样地没有意义,或者是多余的,因而是无用的。如此之多,以至于维持某种程度的无责任的等级的唯一可想象的解决方案似乎在于必须指定可能观察到的不同类型的洞察力的废除,然后根据它们与保留刑事责任的或多或少的兼容性提出一个等级。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Medecine & Droit
Medecine & Droit MEDICINE, LEGAL-
CiteScore
0.30
自引率
0.00%
发文量
27
期刊介绍: The Scientific Committee of the journal Médecine et Droit includes professors of medicine, professors of law, magistrates, lawyers, court medical experts, and specialists in compensation for physical injury. Médecine et Droit provides: • rigorous and clear support for informative and educational matter • a tool for reflection and actualisation of knowledge • an essential link between doctors and lawyers. Médecine et Droit informs: • doctors on different aspects of law and regulations encountered in their profession • lawyers on the specific problems of the medical profession and important bio-ethical issues
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信