本文選題：刑事訴訟 + 司法精神病鑒定�。� 參考：《煙臺大學(xué)》2016年碩士論文

【摘要】：刑事司法精神病鑒定是將刑事訴訟中涉及的精神醫(yī)學(xué)問題交由具備專業(yè)知識的鑒定人進(jìn)行判斷、鑒別、評價并提供鑒定意見的活動。對于保障犯罪嫌疑人和被告人人權(quán)、實現(xiàn)程序正義、提升訴訟效率具有重要意義。但就當(dāng)下而言,我國刑事司法精神病鑒定制度還存在很多不足,亟待完善。首先,在鑒定啟動環(huán)節(jié)上,“啟動難”問題十分突出,“重復(fù)鑒定”、“補(bǔ)充鑒定”現(xiàn)象泛濫。目前世界范圍內(nèi),主要存在英美法系“當(dāng)事人主義”和大陸法系“令狀主義”兩種啟動模式,雖然二者相差很大,但都努力維系著控辯雙方在權(quán)利配置的平衡。在未來鑒定體制的改革中我們也應(yīng)擴(kuò)大辯方的話語權(quán),對重復(fù)鑒定、補(bǔ)充鑒定進(jìn)行合理的限制。其次,在鑒定人管理方面,我國鑒定人準(zhǔn)入門檻還很低,資格審查機(jī)制混亂。通過對域外法系考察可以發(fā)現(xiàn),無論是大陸法系的“法定主義”管理模式還是英美法系的“任意主義”管理模式,皆是以鑒定人“能力適格”為中心,通過事先的條件性審查和事后的即時性審查保障鑒定人的鑒定水準(zhǔn)。因此,我們可以嘗試從多個方面對鑒定人資格提出要求,構(gòu)建統(tǒng)一的鑒定人職業(yè)資格考試制度和職業(yè)培訓(xùn)考核制度,加強(qiáng)鑒定人的隊伍建設(shè)。最后,在鑒定意見審查上,我國法官對精神病鑒定意見過度依賴,控辯雙方的質(zhì)證流于形式。對此我們可以適當(dāng)借鑒兩大法系的相關(guān)做法,合理設(shè)置鑒定意見的質(zhì)證程序、引入鑒定意見的庭前開示程序,細(xì)化鑒定意見的認(rèn)證程序,以保障鑒定意見審查的充分有效性。
[Abstract]:Criminal judicial psychiatric identification is an activity that refers the psychiatric problems involved in criminal proceedings to experts with professional knowledge to judge, identify, evaluate and provide expert opinions. It is of great significance to protect the human rights of suspects and defendants, to realize procedural justice and to improve the efficiency of litigation. However, at present, there are still many deficiencies in the criminal judicial psychiatric appraisal system in our country, which need to be improved urgently. First of all, the problem of "hard to start" is very prominent, "repeated identification" and "supplementary identification" are widespread. At present, there are two starting modes of "litigant doctrine" in Anglo-American law system and "writ doctrine" in civil law system in the world. Although the two modes are quite different, they both strive to maintain the balance between the prosecution and the defense in the allocation of rights. In the reform of identification system in the future, we should also expand the voice of the defense, and limit the repeated identification and supplementary identification reasonably. Secondly, in the aspect of appraiser management, the threshold of admission is very low, and the qualification examination mechanism is confused. Through the investigation of the extraterritorial legal system, it can be found that both the "legalism" management mode of the continental law system and the "arbitrariness" management mode of the common law system are centered on the "competence suitability" of the appraiser. The qualification level is guaranteed by prior conditional review and immediate review afterwards. Therefore, we can try to put forward the request to the appraiser qualification from many aspects, construct the unified professional qualification examination system and the vocational training examination system of the expert, strengthen the team construction of the appraiser. Finally, in the appraisal opinion examination, our country judge excessively relies on the psychiatric appraisal opinion, and the cross-examination between the prosecution and the defense is a mere formality. For this reason, we can draw lessons from the relevant practices of the two major legal systems, reasonably set up the cross-examination procedure of the appraisal opinion, introduce the pre-court disclosure procedure of the appraisal opinion, and refine the authentication procedure of the appraisal opinion, so as to ensure the full validity of the appraisal opinion examination.
【學(xué)位授予單位】：煙臺大學(xué)
【學(xué)位級別】：碩士
【學(xué)位授予年份】：2016
【分類號】：D925.2
，

本文編號：1800044