本文選題：鑒定意見 + 啟動(dòng)程序�。� 參考：《中國政法大學(xué)》2010年碩士論文

【摘要】： 司法鑒定意見在刑事訴訟的偵查階段、審查起訴階段以及審判階段都對于案件事實(shí)所涉及的專門性問題的解決起著至關(guān)重要的作用。司法鑒定意見是一種特殊的證據(jù)形式,必須經(jīng)過查證屬實(shí),才能作為定案的根據(jù)。目前,由于鑒定意見并不是完全準(zhǔn)確,也會(huì)存在歪曲事實(shí)的情況。因此對司法鑒定意見的法律性質(zhì)和證據(jù)效力尚存認(rèn)識(shí)上的分歧,諸多原因?qū)е聦λ痉ㄨb定意見的質(zhì)證流于形式,應(yīng)正確認(rèn)識(shí)司法鑒定結(jié)論的法律性質(zhì)和證據(jù)效力。在司法實(shí)踐中,相對滯后的鑒定意見立法,缺少對司法鑒定啟動(dòng)程序的設(shè)計(jì)、鑒定實(shí)施和監(jiān)督程序的規(guī)范以及相應(yīng)的質(zhì)證以及認(rèn)證程序規(guī)則,使鑒定意見在刑事訴訟中的適用性受到限制,降低了鑒定意見在刑事訴訟中的重要性。針對上述問題,我國在2005年2月28日正式出臺(tái)了《全國人民代表大會(huì)常務(wù)委員會(huì)關(guān)于司法鑒定管理問題的決定》,規(guī)范了司法鑒定程序,該《決定》明確規(guī)定了鑒定人資格準(zhǔn)入、鑒定機(jī)構(gòu)的平等性、司法鑒定管理機(jī)構(gòu)、鑒定業(yè)務(wù)的限制、鑒定人的出庭義務(wù)和法律責(zé)任,一定程度上保證鑒定意見的有效性和準(zhǔn)確性,在立法的層面就如何有效地實(shí)施鑒定、對鑒定意見進(jìn)行質(zhì)證和認(rèn)證展開討論。本文通過借鑒外國成功的立法和經(jīng)驗(yàn),對我國刑事鑒定制度的適用中所存在的問題進(jìn)行了深入剖析,為完善我國鑒定啟動(dòng)、鑒定的實(shí)施和監(jiān)督以及鑒定的質(zhì)證和認(rèn)證程序提出了一些建議,對保證鑒定意見的有效性,以及完善刑事司法鑒定制度進(jìn)行了深入探討。
[Abstract]:The opinion of judicial expertise plays an important role in the investigation stage of criminal procedure, the stage of examination and prosecution, and the stage of trial, which plays an important role in solving the specialized problems involved in the facts of the case. Judicial opinion is a special form of evidence, must be verified to be the basis of the decision. At present, because the appraisal opinion is not completely accurate, there will also be distortion of the facts. Therefore, there are still differences on the legal nature and the validity of the evidence of judicial expertise opinion, many reasons lead to cross-examination of judicial expertise opinion as a mere formality, so we should correctly understand the legal nature and evidentiary effect of the conclusion of judicial expertise. In the judicial practice, the relative lagging legislation of appraisal opinion, the lack of the design of the procedure of initiating the judicial identification, the norm of the procedure of implementation and supervision of the appraisal, the corresponding rules of cross-examination and authentication procedure, The applicability of expert opinion in criminal procedure is limited, and the importance of expert opinion in criminal procedure is reduced. In response to the above problems, on February 28, 2005, China formally promulgated the decision on the Administration of Judicial expertise of the standing Committee of the National people's Congress, which standardizes the procedure of judicial identification. The equality of the appraisal institution, the limitation of the appraisal business, the duty to appear in court and the legal responsibility of the expert, to a certain extent, guarantee the validity and accuracy of the appraisal opinion, and how to carry out the appraisal effectively at the level of legislation, To the appraisal opinion carries on the cross-examination and the authentication carries on the discussion. By drawing lessons from the successful legislation and experience of foreign countries, this paper makes a deep analysis of the problems existing in the application of the criminal appraisal system in China, in order to improve the identification of our country. This paper puts forward some suggestions on the implementation and supervision of appraisal and the procedure of cross-examination and authentication, and probes into how to ensure the validity of appraisal opinions and how to perfect the system of criminal judicial identification.
【學(xué)位授予單位】：中國政法大學(xué)
【學(xué)位級(jí)別】：碩士
【學(xué)位授予年份】：2010
【分類號(hào)】：D919.4

【參考文獻(xiàn)】

相關(guān)期刊論文 前6條

1 包大進(jìn);也談現(xiàn)代司法鑒定理念[J];法律與醫(yī)學(xué)雜志;2003年03期

2 吳丹紅;我國鑒定人出庭作證制度探析——以刑事訴訟為背景[J];中國司法鑒定;2003年02期

3 黃維智;論我國司法實(shí)踐中鑒定證據(jù)制度的四大突出問題(上)[J];中國司法鑒定;2004年02期

4 黃再再;鑒定結(jié)論的認(rèn)證規(guī)則研究——以刑事訴訟為背景[J];中國司法鑒定;2003年03期

5 蔣麗華,李蘊(yùn);影響鑒定結(jié)論可靠性的相關(guān)因素研究[J];中國司法鑒定;2004年03期

6 黃維智;論我國司法實(shí)踐中鑒定證據(jù)制度的四大突出問題(下)[J];中國司法鑒定;2004年03期

相關(guān)碩士學(xué)位論文 前1條

1 湯軼群;刑事司法鑒定程序完善構(gòu)想[D];吉林大學(xué);2006年

，

本文編號(hào)：2037514