司法鉴定结论的质证制度研究

发布时间：2018-03-20 01:03

本文选题：司法鉴定结论　切入点：质证　出处：《对外经济贸易大学》2006年硕士论文　论文类型：学位论文

【摘要】： 2005年2月28日通过,并于同年10月1日正式实施的《全国人民代表大会常务委员会关于司法鉴定管理问题的决定》(下文简称《决定》)明确规定:“司法鉴定是指在诉讼活动中鉴定人运用科学技术或者专门知识对诉讼涉及的专门性问题进行鉴别和判断并提供鉴定意见的活动。”而司法鉴定结论是鉴定人根据鉴定材料,检验、分析做出的事实性、科学性判断,它的作用就是确定某些实物证据与案件事实之间的关联,从而使这些证据材料产生证据价值。鉴定结论具有合法性、客观性和科学性的特征。但另一方面由于鉴定程序的启动、实施以及鉴定结论的采信等都离不开人的因素,因此鉴定结论不可避免地会打上主观的烙印。我国诉讼法习惯于将鉴定人视为“中立的参与人”,将鉴定结论视为科学结论,而对鉴定结论作为证据的另一个侧面-----主观性认识不足,这就直接妨碍了鉴定结论证据作用的发挥。我国的三部诉讼法和司法解释均规定了鉴定人出庭作证的内容。《决定》更是作出了“在诉讼中,当事人对鉴定意见有异议,经人民法院依法通知,鉴定人应当出庭作证”的原则性规定。面对鉴定机构越来越走向社会化和经营化的现状,面对司法实践中鉴定人出庭难的现实,本文通过借鉴两大法系对此制度的成功经验,提出我国应当建立和完善鉴定人出庭作证的具体制度和一系列配套制度的设想。
[Abstract]:Adopted on February 28th 2005, The decision of the standing Committee of the National people's Congress on the Administration of Forensic expertise (hereinafter referred to as "the decision"), which was formally implemented on October 1st of the same year, clearly states: "Forensic expertise refers to the movement of experts in litigation activities." The activity of using science, technology or expertise to identify and judge the specialized issues involved in the proceedings and to provide an expert opinion... "and the conclusion of judicial expertise is that the expert shall, on the basis of the identification materials, The function of testing, analyzing, and judging the facts made is to determine the relationship between some physical evidence and the facts of the case, so as to make these evidential materials produce evidential value. But on the other hand, because of the initiation, implementation and adoption of the appraisal conclusion, etc., it is inseparable from human factors. Therefore, the conclusion of appraisal will inevitably be branded subjectively. Our country's procedural law is accustomed to regard the appraiser as a "neutral participant", and regard the conclusion of appraisal as a scientific conclusion. But the other side of the appraisal conclusion as evidence-subjectivity is not enough, This directly hinders the exertion of the role of the evidence of the expert conclusion. The three procedural laws and judicial interpretations of our country all stipulate the content of the authenticator to testify in court. "in the proceedings, the parties have objections to the appraisal opinion," the decision said. Upon notification by the people's court according to law, the expert shall appear in court as a witness in accordance with the principle of the provisions of principle. In the face of the fact that the appraisal institution is becoming more and more socialized and operating, and facing the reality that it is difficult for the expert to appear in court in judicial practice, Based on the successful experience of the two legal systems, this paper puts forward the idea that our country should establish and perfect the concrete system and a series of supporting systems for experts to testify in court.
【学位授予单位】：对外经济贸易大学
【学位级别】：硕士
【学位授予年份】：2006
【分类号】：D918.9;D925

【相似文献】