本文選題：鑒定意見(jiàn) + 本質(zhì)屬性��； 參考：《中國(guó)青年政治學(xué)院》2014年碩士論文

【摘要】：鑒定意見(jiàn)是刑事訴訟法定證據(jù)類(lèi)型之一,目的在于解決訴訟涉及的專(zhuān)門(mén)性問(wèn)題,幫助查明和認(rèn)定案件事實(shí)。然而,在我國(guó)刑事鑒定制度中,刑事鑒定意見(jiàn)規(guī)則存在很多問(wèn)題,如刑事鑒定意見(jiàn)概念界定模糊、性質(zhì)定位不清;鑒定啟動(dòng)程序規(guī)定不合理;鑒定人出庭質(zhì)證條件過(guò)嚴(yán)、專(zhuān)家輔助人制度不健全;鑒定意見(jiàn)的采信標(biāo)準(zhǔn)不明確,法官自由心證過(guò)大等。文章以刑事鑒定意見(jiàn)內(nèi)涵與屬性的研究為基礎(chǔ),分別展開(kāi)對(duì)刑事鑒定意見(jiàn)的啟動(dòng)、質(zhì)證、認(rèn)證程序探討,旨在解決刑事鑒定意見(jiàn)規(guī)則中的問(wèn)題,促進(jìn)我國(guó)刑事鑒定意見(jiàn)制度的完善。第一部分主要是提出文章論題。在分析鑒定的本質(zhì)屬性與法律價(jià)值的基礎(chǔ)上,討論鑒定意見(jiàn)的基本概念,以及由此引出的鑒定意見(jiàn)啟動(dòng)、質(zhì)證與認(rèn)證問(wèn)題。第二部分圍繞著鑒定意見(jiàn)的啟動(dòng)問(wèn)題展開(kāi)。由于對(duì)鑒定啟動(dòng)權(quán)性質(zhì)的不同理解,形成當(dāng)事人啟動(dòng)模式和職權(quán)主義啟動(dòng)模式。通過(guò)對(duì)這兩種啟動(dòng)模式的評(píng)析,借鑒其合理之處,從而完善我國(guó)鑒定意見(jiàn)啟動(dòng)模式。第三部分著重探討鑒定意見(jiàn)的質(zhì)證問(wèn)題。鑒定意見(jiàn)要具備證據(jù)能力,必須在嚴(yán)格證明下,進(jìn)行法庭調(diào)查。同時(shí),結(jié)合我國(guó)現(xiàn)有法律規(guī)定,對(duì)鑒定意見(jiàn)質(zhì)證中的基本問(wèn)題如鑒定人出庭作證制度、交叉詢(xún)問(wèn)制度與專(zhuān)家輔助人制度展開(kāi)探討。第四部分涉及鑒定意見(jiàn)認(rèn)證問(wèn)題。鑒定意見(jiàn)作為定案依據(jù),不僅要求鑒定意見(jiàn)具備證據(jù)能力,而且具有證明力。法官對(duì)證明力的判斷,主要憑借自由心證,但法官的自由心證是有限制的。此外,法官對(duì)鑒定意見(jiàn)的采信理由需要公開(kāi),接受公眾監(jiān)督。第五部分是結(jié)語(yǔ),就刑事鑒定意見(jiàn)問(wèn)題進(jìn)行總結(jié),并提出自己的觀點(diǎn)。
[Abstract]:Appraisal opinion is one of the types of evidence established by the Criminal procedure Law, the purpose of which is to solve the specialized problems involved in the lawsuit and help to find out and identify the facts of the case. However, in our criminal identification system, there are many problems in the rules of criminal identification opinion, such as the definition of criminal appraisal opinion is vague, the nature is not clear, the procedure for the initiation of identification is unreasonable, and the conditions for cross-examination in court are too strict. The system of expert assistant is not perfect, the standard of acceptance of appraisal opinion is not clear, the judge is free to testify too much, and so on. Based on the study of the connotation and attribute of criminal expertise opinion, the paper discusses the initiation, cross-examination and authentication procedure of criminal identification opinion, aiming at solving the problems in the rules of criminal identification opinion. To promote the perfection of the opinion system of criminal appraisal in our country. The first part mainly puts forward the article topic. On the basis of analyzing the essential attribute and legal value of appraisal, this paper discusses the basic concept of appraisal opinion and the problems of initiation, cross-examination and authentication. The second part revolves around the appraisal opinion initiation question. Due to the different understanding of the nature of the appraising right to start, it forms the starting mode of the parties and the mode of the doctrine of authority. Through the analysis and analysis of these two startup modes, we can use them for reference and perfect our country's appraisal opinion starting mode. The third part focuses on the question of cross-examination of appraisal opinions. The appraisal opinion must have the evidence ability, must carry on the court investigation under the strict proof. At the same time, combined with the existing laws and regulations of our country, this paper probes into the basic problems in the cross-examination of appraisal opinions, such as the system of witnesses appearing in court, the system of cross-examination and the system of expert assistant. The fourth part deals with the authentication of appraisal opinions. Appraisal opinion, as the basis of final decision, not only requires the appraisal opinion to have the evidence ability, but also has the proof power. The judge's judgment on the power of proof mainly depends on the free evidence, but the judge's free evidence is limited. In addition, the reasons for the judge's acceptance of the opinion need to be made public and subject to public scrutiny. The fifth part is the conclusion, summarizes the criminal appraisal opinion question, and puts forward own viewpoint.
【學(xué)位授予單位】：中國(guó)青年政治學(xué)院
【學(xué)位級(jí)別】：碩士
【學(xué)位授予年份】：2014
【分類(lèi)號(hào)】：D925.2

【參考文獻(xiàn)】

相關(guān)期刊論文 前9條

1 胡燕;鄭旭;;對(duì)質(zhì)條款在中國(guó)的實(shí)現(xiàn)[J];北華大學(xué)學(xué)報(bào)(社會(huì)科學(xué)版);2012年03期

2 Edward J.Imwinkelried;王進(jìn)喜;;論表象時(shí)代的終結(jié)[J];證據(jù)科學(xué);2011年04期

3 田毅平;;新刑事訴訟法鑒定制度不足與再完善[J];湖北社會(huì)科學(xué);2013年07期

4 樊崇義,郭華;鑒定結(jié)論質(zhì)證問(wèn)題研究(下)[J];中國(guó)司法鑒定;2005年03期

5 陳瑞華;論司法鑒定人的出庭作證[J];中國(guó)司法鑒定;2005年04期

6 徐靜村;;論刑事訴訟中鑒定權(quán)配置模式的選擇[J];中國(guó)司法鑒定;2006年05期

7 郭華;;證明責(zé)任與強(qiáng)制鑒定:“精神病”的鑒定問(wèn)題研究[J];中國(guó)司法鑒定;2007年03期

8 李貴連;二十世紀(jì)初期的中國(guó)法學(xué)(續(xù))[J];中外法學(xué);1997年05期

9 張友好;;經(jīng)驗(yàn)與規(guī)則之間:為法定證據(jù)辯護(hù)[J];中國(guó)刑事法雜志;2005年06期

相關(guān)重要報(bào)紙文章 前1條

1 寧紅;[N];江蘇法制報(bào);2008年

，

本文編號(hào)：1777379