本文選題：司法鑒定 + 偵查��； 參考：《內(nèi)蒙古大學(xué)》2014年碩士論文

【摘要】：公安機關(guān)一直是我國最主要的偵查主體,其司法鑒定于二十世紀(jì)五十年代起步并作為重要的偵查手段,在打擊犯罪,維護社會秩序上起到了積極作用。在改革開放后,相關(guān)研究加強,引進域外的相關(guān)理念與制度,樹立了作為證據(jù)的司法鑒定必須具備中立性的理念。這就與公安機關(guān)一直以來將鑒定機構(gòu)和人員從屬于偵查部門的現(xiàn)實存在沖突,而“自偵自鑒”在一系列冤假錯案中的消極作用又加劇了這方面的爭議。2005年《全國人民代表大會常務(wù)委員會關(guān)于司法鑒定管理問題的決定》(下簡稱《決定》)的頒布,表明國家在保留公安機關(guān)司法鑒定的前提下,試圖以司法部統(tǒng)一管理鑒定領(lǐng)域的體制消解“自偵自鑒”帶來的問題,但《決定》受到了公安部門的抵觸。2012年新修訂的《刑事訴訟法》依舊沿用了以往法律中鑒定從屬于偵查的體系,但是,結(jié)構(gòu)性問題導(dǎo)致的“自偵自鑒”難題仍然沒有得到解決。因此,要在貫徹《決定》的基礎(chǔ)上,試圖消解“自偵自鑒”這一弊病,理清條理,促進公安機關(guān)偵查和司法鑒定的發(fā)展,就必須研究公安機關(guān)的司法鑒定。本文將通過實證分析法,參考域外相關(guān)規(guī)定,試圖對相關(guān)理論和現(xiàn)狀,具體通過以下四個部分進行探討：第一個部分是公安機關(guān)司法鑒定的概述。這里將就相關(guān)的概念、性質(zhì)、特性以及作用等進行研究,找出二者的區(qū)別所在,從而理清公安機關(guān)的司法鑒定這一制度的相關(guān)內(nèi)容和現(xiàn)狀。第二部分是我國公安機關(guān)司法鑒定的立法與不足。通過對制度整體進行相關(guān)研究,找出公安機關(guān)司法鑒定在立法、理論與實踐中的一些問題。第三部分是域外相關(guān)制度的考察。這部分內(nèi)容主要是介紹英美、德法和俄羅斯的相關(guān)制度,了解其運行現(xiàn)狀。第四部分是公安機關(guān)司法鑒定的規(guī)制建議。筆者試圖在立法、理念、管理體制、研究思路和人才培養(yǎng)上提出自己的一些建議,從而促進偵查工作,避免“自偵自鑒”的弊端,達到維護社會安定和充分利用司法資源,打擊犯罪與保護人權(quán)并舉之效。
[Abstract]:The public security organ has always been the most important subject of investigation in our country. Its judicial expertise started in the 1950s and as an important investigative means, it has played an active role in cracking down on crime and maintaining social order. After the reform and opening up, relevant research has been strengthened, and foreign concepts and systems have been introduced to establish the idea that forensic expertise as evidence must be neutral. This is in conflict with the reality that public security organs have been subordinating appraisal agencies and personnel to investigative departments, However, the negative role of "self-investigation and self-learning" in a series of cases of injustice, falsehood and error has exacerbated the controversy in this respect. In 2005, the "decision of the standing Committee of the National people's Congress on the Administration of Judicial expertise" (hereinafter referred to as "decision") was promulgated. It shows that the state, on the premise of retaining the judicial expertise of public security organs, attempts to resolve the problems caused by "self-investigation and self-identification" by the unified management system of the Ministry of Justice in the field of appraisal. But the decision has been contradicted by the public security department. The 2012 revised Criminal procedure Law still follows the system of identification subordinate to investigation in previous laws, but the problem of "self-detection and self-identification" caused by structural problems has still not been solved. Therefore, on the basis of carrying out "decision", we must study the judicial identification of public security organs in order to resolve the shortcoming of "self-detection and self-identification", to clear up the order and to promote the development of investigation and judicial expertise of public security organs. This article will pass the empirical analysis method, the reference overseas correlation stipulation, attempts to the correlation theory and the present situation, through the following four parts concretely carries on the discussion: the first part is the public security organ judicial appraisal summary. In this paper, we will study the related concepts, properties, characteristics and functions, and find out the differences between the two, so as to clarify the relevant contents and present situation of the system of judicial identification of public security organs. The second part is the legislation and deficiency of judicial expertise of public security organs in China. By studying the system as a whole, we find out some problems in the legislation, theory and practice of the judicial expertise of public security organs. The third part is the investigation of the relevant system. This part is mainly to introduce the Anglo-American, German and French and Russian related systems, to understand the current situation of its operation. The fourth part is the public security organ judicial appraisal regulation suggestion. The author tries to put forward some suggestions on legislation, idea, management system, research train of thought and talent training, so as to promote the investigation work, avoid the malpractice of "self-detection and self-warning", and achieve the goal of maintaining social stability and making full use of judicial resources. Fighting crime and protecting human rights work together.
【學(xué)位授予單位】：內(nèi)蒙古大學(xué)
【學(xué)位級別】：碩士
【學(xué)位授予年份】：2014
【分類號】：D925.2

【參考文獻】

相關(guān)期刊論文 前10條

1 郭華;;偵查機關(guān)內(nèi)設(shè)鑒定機構(gòu)鑒定問題的透視與分析——13起錯案涉及鑒定問題的展開[J];證據(jù)科學(xué);2008年04期

2 王震;;論我國偵查權(quán)的司法權(quán)屬性[J];法制與社會;2012年09期

3 黃東平;;檢察機關(guān)司法鑒定障礙性問題及解決路徑[J];廣東廣播電視大學(xué)學(xué)報;2011年02期

4 汪婷;沈臻懿;盧啟萌;;司法鑒定與刑事偵查視域下的同一認定詮釋與辨析[J];廣東公安科技;2012年01期

5 王圣誦;夏蘭云;;我國司法鑒定機構(gòu)設(shè)置芻議[J];東方論壇;2012年06期

6 霍憲丹;郭華;;進一步改革完善司法鑒定管理制度的基本思路[J];中國司法;2014年01期

7 袁紅兵;;淺析新形勢下公安機關(guān)司法鑒定機構(gòu)的調(diào)適與應(yīng)對[J];中國公共安全(學(xué)術(shù)版);2013年01期

8 黃東平;楊紓;;論提升檢察機關(guān)司法鑒定的公信力的路徑[J];中國檢察官;2012年09期

9 于文瑤;;論刑事鑒定的啟動制度[J];黑龍江省政法管理干部學(xué)院學(xué)報;2011年04期

10 周寶峰;非法證據(jù)排除規(guī)則要論[J];內(nèi)蒙古大學(xué)學(xué)報(人文社會科學(xué)版);2005年03期

，

本文編號：1945267