本文選題：鑒定結(jié)論　切入點：反復(fù)鑒定　出處：《西南政法大學(xué)》2010年碩士論文　論文類型：學(xué)位論文

【摘要】：反復(fù)鑒定已經(jīng)成為長期以來困擾司法實踐的一個突出問題并引起了一些學(xué)者的關(guān)注,學(xué)界對這一問題的研究也可謂見仁見智。然而,這一問題從很早就已經(jīng)提出來了,而到目前仍未予以徹底解決,甚至可以說基本沒有解決。其中的原因,除了立法的滯后等因素外,一個更為重要的原因是學(xué)界對此問題的探討尚停留在比較淺的層面上,很少有論文能觸及到這一問題的實質(zhì)。本文試圖通過對黃靜案的剖析,對這一問題進行深入的探討,以期對這一問題的較好解決出一份力。 反復(fù)鑒定是指對案件中的同一個專門性問題,經(jīng)過一個或多個鑒定機構(gòu)的多次鑒定,獲得一致或不一致意見的現(xiàn)象,其在司法實踐中常被稱為“多頭鑒定”、“重復(fù)鑒定”。為什么同一個專門問題要經(jīng)過幾個鑒定機構(gòu)多次鑒定?筆者認為,這是由我國目前的鑒定制度與鑒定本身共同作用的結(jié)果。鑒定制度層面的原因是外因,主要包括鑒定啟動程序的多元、鑒定實施程序的粗糙、鑒定質(zhì)證程序的虛置,以及最重要的,整個鑒定程序的封閉缺少當(dāng)事人的參與。而鑒定本身的原因,如鑒定主體、鑒定標(biāo)準(zhǔn)、鑒定方法等則是內(nèi)因。通過對造成反復(fù)鑒定的外因與內(nèi)因的揭示,筆者試圖證明,一些造成反復(fù)鑒定的原因是不可避免的,如鑒定主體水平的參差不齊、鑒定方法的差異等,至少在這個層面上,反復(fù)鑒定的存在是有其合理性的。而一些造成反復(fù)鑒定的原因則是可以通過努力而予以避免的,在這個層面上,反復(fù)鑒定的存在是不必要的。因此,在進行新的制度設(shè)計時,必需考慮如何才能最大限度地合理控制反復(fù)鑒定的出現(xiàn)。筆者認為可以從以下方面著手。首先,以加強當(dāng)事人的參與為中心改革鑒定制度。法官享有鑒定程序啟動的決定權(quán),雙方當(dāng)事人則享有啟動的請求權(quán)和申請救濟權(quán),當(dāng)事人參與到鑒定的實施程序中來,并使鑒定質(zhì)證程序?qū)嵸|(zhì)化。其次,對鑒定本身的狀況也應(yīng)進行改善,主要包括變革現(xiàn)行的鑒定人資格管理制度,使之更具獨立性、中立性與統(tǒng)一性,以及建立科學(xué)而統(tǒng)一的鑒定技術(shù)標(biāo)準(zhǔn)等方面。
[Abstract]:Repeated identification has become a prominent problem that has puzzled the judicial practice for a long time and has attracted the attention of some scholars. The academic research on this issue is also divided into different opinions. However, this problem has been raised from a long time ago. So far, it has not been thoroughly solved, or can be said to be basically unsolved. In addition to the lag in legislation and other factors, one of the more important reasons is that the academic community's discussion of this issue has remained at a relatively shallow level. Few papers can reach the essence of this problem. This paper attempts to make a thorough discussion on this problem through the analysis of Huang Jing case in order to solve the problem better. Repeated identification refers to the phenomenon that the same specialized question in a case has been identified by one or more appraisal agencies and has obtained a consistent or inconsistent opinion. It is often referred to as "long appraisal" and "repeated appraisal" in judicial practice. The author believes that this is the result of the joint action of our country's current appraisal system and the appraisal itself. The reasons for the appraisal system level are external causes, mainly including the pluralism of the identification initiation procedure, the roughness of the appraisal implementation procedure, the virtual establishment of the identification cross-examination procedure, And, most importantly, the closure of the whole appraisal procedure lacks the participation of the parties concerned. The reasons for the identification itself, such as the subject, the standard and the method of identification, are internal causes. By revealing the external and internal causes that cause repeated identification, The author tries to prove that some causes of repeated identification are inevitable, such as the uneven level of the subject of identification, the difference of identification methods, and so on, at least on this level. The existence of repeated identification is reasonable, and some of the causes of repeated identification can be avoided through hard work. At this level, the existence of repeated identification is unnecessary. Therefore, in the design of the new system, It is necessary to consider how to control the emergence of repeated identification to the maximum extent. The author thinks that we can start from the following aspects. Firstly, we should reform the appraisal system by strengthening the participation of the parties. The judge has the right to decide the initiation of the appraisal procedure. On the other hand, the parties have the right to request for commencement and the right to apply for relief. The parties participate in the implementation of the appraisal procedure and make the identification cross-examination procedure substantive. Secondly, the condition of the appraisal itself should also be improved. It mainly includes reforming the current system of expert qualification management, making it more independent, neutral and unified, and establishing scientific and unified technical standard of appraisal.
【學(xué)位授予單位】：西南政法大學(xué)
【學(xué)位級別】：碩士
【學(xué)位授予年份】：2010
【分類號】：D918.9

【參考文獻】

相關(guān)期刊論文 前10條

1 郭華;;再論我國司法場域的鑒定管理權(quán)問題——全國人大常委會《關(guān)于司法鑒定管理問題的決定》實施后的展開[J];中國司法;2006年11期

2 郭華;;論司法鑒定統(tǒng)一管理的困境癥結(jié)及破解路向——以全國人大常委會《關(guān)于司法鑒定管理問題的決定》為中心[J];中國司法;2007年03期

3 王敏遠;郭華;;我國司法鑒定體制改革的檢視與評價——《關(guān)于司法鑒定管理問題的決定》實施三年來的情況分析與評價[J];中國司法;2008年12期

4 王美麗;也談司法鑒定的法律完善[J];公安大學(xué)學(xué)報;2000年05期

5 潘溪;;論司法鑒定的多頭鑒定、重復(fù)鑒定問題[J];江蘇警官學(xué)院學(xué)報;2008年02期

6 郭華;司法場域的鑒定管理權(quán)爭奪與廝殺——以人大常委會《關(guān)于司法鑒定管理問題的決定》為中心[J];華東政法學(xué)院學(xué)報;2005年05期

7 夏渝;“多頭鑒定”、“重復(fù)鑒定”之我見[J];人民檢察;2001年09期

8 魯滌,常林;從親子鑒定的問題看標(biāo)準(zhǔn)化規(guī)范化管理的重要性[J];中國司法鑒定;2001年01期

9 姚燧彪;芻議傷殘程度評定標(biāo)準(zhǔn)[J];中國司法鑒定;2002年01期

10 田文昌;司法鑒定與當(dāng)事人訴訟權(quán)利保障[J];中國司法鑒定;2003年04期

，

本文編號：1568214