本文選題：鑒定結(jié)論 + 證明力　； 參考：《湖南大學(xué)》2009年碩士論文

【摘要】： 作為三大訴訟法中證據(jù)種類之一的鑒定結(jié)論,與其它類型證據(jù)相比,具有科學(xué)性、程序性、獨(dú)立性的特點(diǎn)。鑒定結(jié)論證明力是指由法官對(duì)證據(jù)關(guān)聯(lián)性、真實(shí)性與合法性綜合判斷后認(rèn)定的對(duì)案件事實(shí)證明的程度大小。 基于鑒定結(jié)論獨(dú)特性,其證明力受到諸多因素的影響。鑒定人的科學(xué)知識(shí)與執(zhí)業(yè)經(jīng)驗(yàn)對(duì)鑒定結(jié)論的真實(shí)性起到?jīng)Q定性的作用,而其資質(zhì)與中立地位是鑒定結(jié)論真實(shí)性的保障;委任制度的完善有利于鑒定人避免主觀上受到當(dāng)事人的意見左右,也能加強(qiáng)法庭職權(quán)作用,提高訴訟效率,節(jié)省訴訟成本,保證鑒定結(jié)論的中立客觀;鑒定材料的合法性與真實(shí)性是鑒定結(jié)論具有較高證明力的基本要求,鑒定手段的科學(xué)與正確是鑒定結(jié)論真實(shí)、準(zhǔn)確、可靠的保證,鑒定人只能就事實(shí)作出結(jié)論;鑒定書是鑒定人鑒定工作最直接的成果,以書面的形式體現(xiàn)出來,為減少鑒定結(jié)論從形式上降低鑒定結(jié)論證明力,對(duì)鑒定書進(jìn)行規(guī)范化管理是較為有效的措施,這也是對(duì)鑒定人科學(xué)嚴(yán)謹(jǐn)態(tài)度的驗(yàn)證;質(zhì)證程序是確定鑒定結(jié)論證明力的必經(jīng)程序,承擔(dān)著展示司法公信、撫慰當(dāng)事人、平衡權(quán)利與義務(wù)的作用;法官在判決中對(duì)鑒定結(jié)論的采信與否是對(duì)鑒定結(jié)論證明力的最終判斷,這種判斷應(yīng)當(dāng)是建立在一定的原則與規(guī)則基礎(chǔ)上,否則容易造成法官濫用鑒定結(jié)論的局面,導(dǎo)致鑒定結(jié)論證據(jù)缺乏證明力。 我國現(xiàn)行司法鑒定制度下,鑒定結(jié)論證明力的提高不僅要從法規(guī)方面建立統(tǒng)一科學(xué)的司法鑒定標(biāo)準(zhǔn),完善鑒定人責(zé)任約束機(jī)制及鑒定委任制度,更應(yīng)當(dāng)進(jìn)一步完善規(guī)范質(zhì)證程序及法官對(duì)鑒定結(jié)論的采信制度,避免當(dāng)前鑒定結(jié)論證明力所面臨的尷尬局面,為公正司法提供有效的證據(jù)保障。
[Abstract]:As one of the three kinds of evidence in procedural law, the conclusion is scientific, procedural and independent compared with other types of evidence. The probative power of the appraisal conclusion refers to the degree of proof of the facts of the case, which is determined by the judge after the comprehensive judgment of the relevance, authenticity and legality of the evidence. Based on the uniqueness of the appraisal conclusion, its proof power is influenced by many factors. The expert's scientific knowledge and practice experience play a decisive role in the authenticity of the appraisal conclusion, and its qualification and neutral status are the guarantee of the authenticity of the appraisal conclusion. The perfection of the appointment system is beneficial to the expert to avoid subjectively being influenced by the opinions of the parties, and can also strengthen the role of the court authority, improve the efficiency of litigation, save the litigation cost, and ensure the neutrality and objectivity of the appraisal conclusion. The legitimacy and authenticity of the identification materials are the basic requirements of the identification conclusion with higher proof power. The scientific and correct identification means are the true, accurate and reliable guarantee of the appraisal conclusion, and the expert can only make a conclusion on the facts. The appraisal certificate is the most direct result of the appraiser's appraisal work, which is embodied in the written form. In order to reduce the formal proof of the appraisal conclusion, the standardized management of the appraisal document is a more effective measure. This is also the verification of the expert's scientific and rigorous attitude; the cross-examination procedure is the necessary procedure to determine the proof power of the appraisal conclusion, which is responsible for displaying the judicial public trust, comforting the parties, and balancing the rights and obligations. The judge's acceptance of the conclusion in the judgment is the final judgment on the power of proof of the conclusion, which should be based on certain principles and rules, otherwise, it is easy to cause the judge to abuse the conclusion. Leading to the identification of the evidence lack of proof. Under the current system of judicial expertise in China, the improvement of the power of proof of expert conclusion should not only establish a unified and scientific standard of judicial identification from the aspect of laws and regulations, but also perfect the restraint mechanism of expert's responsibility and the system of accreditation and appointment. Furthermore, we should further perfect the system of standard cross-examination procedure and the judge's acceptance of the appraisal conclusion, avoid the awkward situation that the power of proof of the appraisal conclusion faces at present, and provide effective evidence guarantee for the just judicature.
【學(xué)位授予單位】：湖南大學(xué)
【學(xué)位級(jí)別】：碩士
【學(xué)位授予年份】：2009
【分類號(hào)】：D918.9

【引證文獻(xiàn)】

相關(guān)碩士學(xué)位論文 前1條

1 申慧;論我國民事訴訟程序中鑒定結(jié)論的證據(jù)效力[D];西南財(cái)經(jīng)大學(xué);2012年

，

本文編號(hào)：1866354