科学证据的诉讼认知论

发布时间：2019-02-22 17:39

【摘要】：新《刑事诉讼法》要求必须坚持统筹处理惩治犯罪与保障人权关系的原则，即在应对日益科技化、信息化、复杂化的犯罪活动时，要在尊重和保障人权的基础上，综合运用科学技术，实现司法证明的科学化。当然，上述要求不仅适用于刑事案件，也同样为民事诉讼所接受。这是因为在民事证据材料发现、提取、解读、质证和认证的一系列工作过程中，经常需要借助法庭科学技术对涉案痕迹、文书、微量物证、DNA等进行司法鉴定来再现和确认案件事实。但在现实生活中，由于欠缺法庭科学的相关知识，无论是司法官员还是代理律师在对鉴定意见的认知上经常会产生偏差：一方面，法官常常会视司法鉴定意见为唯一真理而草率使用。基于当前司法鉴定行业尚存的诸如利益寻租、管理混乱、鉴定技能良莠不齐等现象的综合考量，这种态度极有可能导致因采信错误鉴定意见而影响案件事实准确认定的情形出现；另一方面，如果律师对法庭科学基本原理一无所知，就会使其在提请鉴定委托要求时不具有针对性，要么贻误最佳鉴定时机，要么致使重新鉴定和补充鉴定，要么不能对鉴定意见作出对其有利的质证，这既降低了诉讼效率，也有失为保护当事人合法权益提供司法服务的职业本性。鉴于此，本文旨在通过对科学证据基本理论范畴的系统阐述和诉讼认知结构的宏观搭建，力求探寻在诉讼活动中对科学证据的认知究竟症结存于何处以及具体解决方法应作何安排两大核心问题。就文章结构来讲，第一部分建立在马克思辩证唯物主义的基础之上，意在借助于对科学证据概念、分类、属性、科学与法律关系的论述，初步揭示出采信疑难之原因——科学证据的不确定度。第二部分紧扣以科学的态度对待科学的指导思想，构建出科学证据诉讼认知的两个层次，，即法官从知识的角度对检验原理与方法的可靠性做出初次审查和从法律的角度就技术人员的专业解答给予系统的二次评判。第三部分立足于我国当前司法实践的现实情况，欲阐述本文的核心观点——一味地追求统一的科学证据诉讼认知标准缺乏实际意义，应该以证明目的为基准，探究裁判者在评价过程中自由心证的运用才更符合需要。
[Abstract]:The new Code of Criminal procedure requires that the principle of comprehensively dealing with the relationship between the punishment of crimes and the protection of human rights must be adhered to, that is, when dealing with increasingly scientific, informational and complex criminal activities, we should respect and protect human rights on the basis of, Comprehensive use of science and technology to achieve scientific judicial proof. Of course, these requirements apply not only to criminal cases, but also to civil proceedings. This is because in the course of a series of work on the discovery, extraction, interpretation, cross-examination and certification of civil evidence materials, it is often necessary to use court science and technology to deal with traces, documents, and trace material evidence involved. DNA and other forensic expertise to reproduce and confirm the facts of the case. But in real life, due to the lack of relevant knowledge of forensic science, both judicial officials and lawyers often have deviations in their understanding of expert opinions: on the one hand, Judges often use judicial opinions hastily as the only truth. Based on the comprehensive consideration of the remaining phenomena in the forensic expertise industry, such as rent-seeking, confusion in management, mixed identification skills, and so on, This attitude is likely to lead to the adoption of false opinion and affect the accurate identification of the facts of the case; On the other hand, if a lawyer knows nothing about the basic principles of court science, he or she will not be targeted when submitting requests for accreditation, either by delaying the best time of identification, or by leading to reappraisal and supplemental identification, Either the appraisal opinion can not make favorable cross-examination, which not only reduces the litigation efficiency, but also loses the professional nature of providing judicial services for the protection of the parties' legitimate rights and interests. In view of this, the purpose of this paper is to systematically expound the basic theoretical category of scientific evidence and to set up the macroscopic structure of litigation cognition. This paper tries to find out where the crux of cognition of scientific evidence lies in litigation activities and how to arrange the concrete solution. As far as the structure of the article is concerned, the first part is based on Marxist dialectical materialism and is intended to be based on the discussion of the concept, classification, attributes, relationship between science and law of scientific evidence. The uncertainty of scientific evidence is preliminarily revealed. The second part closely links to the scientific attitude towards the guiding ideology of science, and constructs two levels of cognition of scientific evidence litigation. That is to say, the judge makes the first examination on the reliability of the inspection principle and method from the angle of knowledge and gives a systematic secondary judgment on the technical personnel's professional solution from the angle of law. The third part is based on the actual situation of our country's current judicial practice, and wants to expound the core point of view of this article-the lack of practical significance in blindly pursuing the unified cognitive standard of scientific evidence litigation, which should be based on the purpose of proof. To explore the use of free heart evidence in the evaluation process is more in line with the need.
【学位授予单位】：西南政法大学
【学位级别】：硕士
【学位授予年份】：2014
【分类号】：D925.2

【参考文献】