刑事專家輔助人制度實(shí)施情況研究
發(fā)布時(shí)間：2018-08-29 14:43
【摘要】：新刑事訴訟法將“有專門知識(shí)的人”寫入條文，標(biāo)志著我國(guó)刑事訴訟領(lǐng)域刑事專家輔助人制度的產(chǎn)生，專家輔助人制度的引入無疑給刑事訴訟法的實(shí)施增添了新的亮點(diǎn)。專家輔助人參與對(duì)鑒定意見的質(zhì)證程序既是解決長(zhǎng)期以來我國(guó)司法鑒定意見審查判斷難、法官采信鑒定意見困局等問題的有效方式，又回應(yīng)了司法證明活動(dòng)越來越科學(xué)化、專業(yè)化的迫切需要。2013年1月1日新版刑事訴訟法正式施行，標(biāo)志著專家輔助人制度從之前的理論探討過渡到了司法實(shí)踐的階段。本文寫作的出發(fā)點(diǎn)就是研究該項(xiàng)制度是如何在司法實(shí)踐中適用，并對(duì)其能否發(fā)揮制度設(shè)計(jì)之初的應(yīng)有功能作初步的探討。在論文寫作過程中，首先，筆者分別從縱向和橫向?qū)υ撝贫冗M(jìn)行了基礎(chǔ)理論分析�？v向方面，分析了專家輔助人制度的生成背景與改革進(jìn)路；橫向方面，比較了域外類似制度的規(guī)定，同時(shí)也參考了我國(guó)行政訴訟法、民事訴訟法中關(guān)于專家輔助人制度的各項(xiàng)規(guī)定。其次，筆者以案例介紹的形式分析了較為典型的專家輔助人參與刑事訴訟的案件，并對(duì)其存在的問題與不足作了相應(yīng)的闡述。最后，針對(duì)該項(xiàng)制度實(shí)施過程中存在的問題提出了相應(yīng)的完善建議，以期對(duì)該制度在司法實(shí)踐中的有效運(yùn)行有所幫助。文章正文由三個(gè)部分組成，約三萬三千字。 第一部分是對(duì)刑事專家輔助人制度基礎(chǔ)理論的分析。專家輔助人制度契合了我國(guó)司法鑒定制度改革的迫切需要，同時(shí)也是在對(duì)域外經(jīng)驗(yàn)有益借鑒的基礎(chǔ)上產(chǎn)生的，此為專家輔助人制度生成的背景。專家輔助人制度的產(chǎn)生經(jīng)歷了從相關(guān)司法解釋到法律修改稿再到定稿實(shí)施，從學(xué)者的理論分析到官方法律建議稿再到法律適用的發(fā)展過程。現(xiàn)行刑事訴訟法主要規(guī)定了該項(xiàng)制度的申請(qǐng)主體、決定機(jī)關(guān)、功能定位等內(nèi)容，法律規(guī)定十分簡(jiǎn)略，這就增添了該制度實(shí)施的困難性。由于我國(guó)鑒定意見啟動(dòng)權(quán)的單方面性，加之偵查機(jī)關(guān)自偵自鑒，重復(fù)鑒定、多頭鑒定等問題的存在，，使得我國(guó)的司法鑒定制度陳年積疴。專家輔助人制度的產(chǎn)生有著其積極的意義，該項(xiàng)制度能有效彌補(bǔ)鑒定啟動(dòng)權(quán)缺失造成的控辯失衡，改善法官因缺乏專門知識(shí)造成的對(duì)鑒定意見的采信困局，從而有利于保障和實(shí)現(xiàn)刑事訴訟的公正價(jià)值，進(jìn)一步增強(qiáng)司法公信力。 第二部分是對(duì)刑事專家輔助人制度的制度缺陷以及實(shí)施情況的分析。由于新的刑事訴訟法剛剛施行，加之鑒定意見一家獨(dú)大的局面沒有得到改觀，因此刑事專家輔助人制度在司法實(shí)踐中的運(yùn)用情況較少，可以用個(gè)案來形容其數(shù)量。包括法官在內(nèi)的司法人員以及社會(huì)大眾對(duì)該項(xiàng)制度的關(guān)注度不夠，制度的適用面仍然較窄。文章選取了較為有代表性的兩例專家輔助人出庭的案件對(duì)司法實(shí)踐中出現(xiàn)的專家輔助人參與刑事訴訟的情況進(jìn)行分析。通過分析發(fā)現(xiàn)：專家輔助人制度在實(shí)施過程中存在著主體性存疑，程序規(guī)定不完備和相應(yīng)保障機(jī)制不完善以及面臨著較為沖突的價(jià)值選擇問題。一方面，法官更加習(xí)慣運(yùn)用專家咨詢、依職權(quán)重新啟動(dòng)鑒定等形式來解決其對(duì)鑒定意見中專門性問題的疑惑；另一方面，現(xiàn)實(shí)中存在著專家輔助人不愿參訴、難找的情況，再加之專家輔助人的實(shí)施效果還未得到充分的顯現(xiàn)，使得該項(xiàng)制度在實(shí)施中境地尷尬。 第三部分是針對(duì)司法實(shí)踐中專家輔助人制度存在的問題提供了相應(yīng)的制度完善措施。為了使該項(xiàng)制度能夠真正的發(fā)揮其應(yīng)有的功能，更好的服務(wù)于司法實(shí)踐，文章認(rèn)為應(yīng)該從以下四個(gè)方面進(jìn)行改革：首先，應(yīng)盡快明確專家輔助人的主體性地位，在保障其有限中立性的基礎(chǔ)上賦予其獨(dú)立的訴訟地位；其次，細(xì)化專家輔助人制度的程序性規(guī)定。通過在審前程序建立專家輔助人的資格認(rèn)證程序，在必要的情況下由訴訟各方對(duì)是否聘請(qǐng)專家輔助人進(jìn)行意見交換，做好庭審前的準(zhǔn)備工作。同時(shí)，進(jìn)一步明確專家輔助人參與法庭審判的權(quán)利、義務(wù)和出庭的細(xì)節(jié)規(guī)定。庭審結(jié)束后，專家輔助人有義務(wù)對(duì)其所了解的有關(guān)鑒定意見的質(zhì)證內(nèi)容向法院呈交書面意見。法院同樣需要對(duì)此進(jìn)行入卷歸檔以便案件的審判及查閱；再次，還需要不斷完善專家輔助人制度的保障機(jī)制。增加專家輔助人出庭的保障性措施的規(guī)定，從而打消專家不愿出庭的顧慮。同時(shí)規(guī)定專家輔助人提供虛假意見應(yīng)承擔(dān)的責(zé)任；最后，還應(yīng)當(dāng)加強(qiáng)法官對(duì)有專家輔助人出庭案件的判決說理與鑒定意見的當(dāng)庭公開認(rèn)證。唯有如此，才能更好的展現(xiàn)專家輔助人意見在庭審過程中的運(yùn)用效果，增強(qiáng)庭審的公開透明性。
[Abstract]:The new Criminal Procedure Law has written "the person with expertise" into the provisions, which marks the emergence of the criminal expert assistant system in the field of criminal procedure in China. The introduction of the expert assistant system undoubtedly adds a new bright spot to the implementation of the Criminal Procedure Law. The new Criminal Procedure Law was formally implemented on January 1, 2013, marking the transition of the expert assistant system from the previous theoretical discussion to the stage of judicial practice. The starting point of this paper is to study how the system is applied in judicial practice, and to make a preliminary discussion on whether it can play its due function at the beginning of the system design. In the process of writing, first of all, the author makes a theoretical analysis of the system from the vertical and horizontal aspects. Secondly, the author analyzes the typical cases in which expert assistant participates in criminal proceedings in the form of case introduction, and compares the provisions of similar systems outside China with those of China's Administrative Procedure Law and Civil Procedure Law. Finally, the paper puts forward some suggestions to improve the system in order to help the effective operation of the system in judicial practice. The text consists of three parts, about 33,000 words.
The first part is the analysis of the basic theory of the criminal expert assistant system.The expert assistant system meets the urgent need of the reform of our country's judicial expertise system,and it is also produced on the basis of the beneficial experience of foreign countries,which is the background of the emergence of the expert assistant system. The current Criminal Procedure Law mainly stipulates the application subject, the determination organ, the function localization and so on. The legal stipulation is very brief, this has increased the difficulty which this system implements. Because of the unilateral nature of the initiation right of expert opinions, the existence of the problems of self-examination, repeated appraisal and multi-appraisal by the investigative organs, the system of judicial appraisal in our country has been prolonged for a long time. The emergence of expert assistant system has its positive significance. This system can effectively remedy the imbalance between prosecution and defense caused by the absence of the initiation right of expert appraisal. The dilemma of acceptance of expert opinions caused by the lack of expertise of good judges is conducive to safeguarding and realizing the fair value of criminal proceedings and further enhancing judicial credibility.
The second part is the analysis of the system defects and implementation of the criminal expert assistant system.Because the new criminal procedure law has just been implemented and the situation of expert opinions being the dominant one has not been improved, the application of the criminal expert assistant system in judicial practice is less, which can be described by individual cases. Judicial personnel, including judges, and the public have not paid enough attention to the system, and the application of the system is still relatively narrow. This paper selects two representative cases of expert assistant appearing in court to analyze the situation of expert assistant participating in criminal proceedings in judicial practice. On the one hand, judges are more accustomed to using expert consultation and restarting appraisal according to their authority to solve their doubts about the specialty of appraisal opinions; on the other hand, judges are more accustomed to using expert consultation to restart appraisal. On the one hand, there are some problems in reality, such as the expert assistant is unwilling to participate in litigation, difficult to find, and the implementation effect of expert assistant has not been fully realized, which makes the system embarrassed in the implementation.
In order to make the system play its due role and serve the judicial practice better, the article holds that the reform should be carried out from the following four aspects: first, the owner of expert assistant should be made clear as soon as possible Secondly, the procedural provisions of the expert assistant system should be refined. By establishing the qualification certification procedure of the expert assistant in the pretrial procedure, the parties to the litigation should exchange views on whether to employ the expert assistant or not and do a good job in the court hearing if necessary. At the same time, further clarify the rights, obligations and details of appearing in court of the expert assistant. After the trial, the expert assistant is obliged to submit written opinions to the court on the cross-examination of the relevant expert opinions he knows. The court also needs to be involved in the filing for the trial of the case. Thirdly, it is necessary to improve the safeguard mechanism of the expert assistant system, increase the safeguard measures for the expert assistant to appear in court, so as to dispel the worries of the expert not willing to appear in court, stipulate the responsibility of the expert assistant to provide false opinions, and finally, strengthen the judge's responsibility for the expert assistant to appear in court cases. Only in this way can we better show the effect of expert assistant opinions in the trial process and enhance the openness and transparency of the trial.
【學(xué)位授予單位】：西南政法大學(xué)
【學(xué)位級(jí)別】：碩士
【學(xué)位授予年份】：2014
【分類號(hào)】：D925.2
本文編號(hào)：2211525
[Abstract]:The new Criminal Procedure Law has written "the person with expertise" into the provisions, which marks the emergence of the criminal expert assistant system in the field of criminal procedure in China. The introduction of the expert assistant system undoubtedly adds a new bright spot to the implementation of the Criminal Procedure Law. The new Criminal Procedure Law was formally implemented on January 1, 2013, marking the transition of the expert assistant system from the previous theoretical discussion to the stage of judicial practice. The starting point of this paper is to study how the system is applied in judicial practice, and to make a preliminary discussion on whether it can play its due function at the beginning of the system design. In the process of writing, first of all, the author makes a theoretical analysis of the system from the vertical and horizontal aspects. Secondly, the author analyzes the typical cases in which expert assistant participates in criminal proceedings in the form of case introduction, and compares the provisions of similar systems outside China with those of China's Administrative Procedure Law and Civil Procedure Law. Finally, the paper puts forward some suggestions to improve the system in order to help the effective operation of the system in judicial practice. The text consists of three parts, about 33,000 words.
The first part is the analysis of the basic theory of the criminal expert assistant system.The expert assistant system meets the urgent need of the reform of our country's judicial expertise system,and it is also produced on the basis of the beneficial experience of foreign countries,which is the background of the emergence of the expert assistant system. The current Criminal Procedure Law mainly stipulates the application subject, the determination organ, the function localization and so on. The legal stipulation is very brief, this has increased the difficulty which this system implements. Because of the unilateral nature of the initiation right of expert opinions, the existence of the problems of self-examination, repeated appraisal and multi-appraisal by the investigative organs, the system of judicial appraisal in our country has been prolonged for a long time. The emergence of expert assistant system has its positive significance. This system can effectively remedy the imbalance between prosecution and defense caused by the absence of the initiation right of expert appraisal. The dilemma of acceptance of expert opinions caused by the lack of expertise of good judges is conducive to safeguarding and realizing the fair value of criminal proceedings and further enhancing judicial credibility.
The second part is the analysis of the system defects and implementation of the criminal expert assistant system.Because the new criminal procedure law has just been implemented and the situation of expert opinions being the dominant one has not been improved, the application of the criminal expert assistant system in judicial practice is less, which can be described by individual cases. Judicial personnel, including judges, and the public have not paid enough attention to the system, and the application of the system is still relatively narrow. This paper selects two representative cases of expert assistant appearing in court to analyze the situation of expert assistant participating in criminal proceedings in judicial practice. On the one hand, judges are more accustomed to using expert consultation and restarting appraisal according to their authority to solve their doubts about the specialty of appraisal opinions; on the other hand, judges are more accustomed to using expert consultation to restart appraisal. On the one hand, there are some problems in reality, such as the expert assistant is unwilling to participate in litigation, difficult to find, and the implementation effect of expert assistant has not been fully realized, which makes the system embarrassed in the implementation.
In order to make the system play its due role and serve the judicial practice better, the article holds that the reform should be carried out from the following four aspects: first, the owner of expert assistant should be made clear as soon as possible Secondly, the procedural provisions of the expert assistant system should be refined. By establishing the qualification certification procedure of the expert assistant in the pretrial procedure, the parties to the litigation should exchange views on whether to employ the expert assistant or not and do a good job in the court hearing if necessary. At the same time, further clarify the rights, obligations and details of appearing in court of the expert assistant. After the trial, the expert assistant is obliged to submit written opinions to the court on the cross-examination of the relevant expert opinions he knows. The court also needs to be involved in the filing for the trial of the case. Thirdly, it is necessary to improve the safeguard mechanism of the expert assistant system, increase the safeguard measures for the expert assistant to appear in court, so as to dispel the worries of the expert not willing to appear in court, stipulate the responsibility of the expert assistant to provide false opinions, and finally, strengthen the judge's responsibility for the expert assistant to appear in court cases. Only in this way can we better show the effect of expert assistant opinions in the trial process and enhance the openness and transparency of the trial.
【學(xué)位授予單位】：西南政法大學(xué)
【學(xué)位級(jí)別】：碩士
【學(xué)位授予年份】：2014
【分類號(hào)】：D925.2
【參考文獻(xiàn)】
相關(guān)期刊論文 前10條
1 陳志興;;論民事訴訟中的專家輔助人制度[J];海峽法學(xué);2010年02期
2 邢學(xué)毅;;論在醫(yī)療糾紛訴訟中推行專家輔助人制度[J];證據(jù)科學(xué);2009年03期
3 盧建軍;;司法鑒定結(jié)論使用中存在問題及解決途徑——兼論我國(guó)訴訟專家輔助人制度的建構(gòu)和完善[J];證據(jù)科學(xué);2010年06期
4 趙珊珊;;制度建構(gòu)的進(jìn)步與立法技術(shù)的缺憾——刑事訴訟法修正案“證人制度”評(píng)述[J];證據(jù)科學(xué);2011年06期
5 黃學(xué)賢;;行政訴訟中的專家輔助人制度及其完善[J];法學(xué);2008年09期
6 郭華;;鑒定人與專家證人制度的沖突及其解決——評(píng)最高院有關(guān)專家證人的相關(guān)答復(fù)[J];法學(xué);2010年05期
7 郭華;;切實(shí)保障刑事訴訟法中司法鑒定條款的實(shí)施[J];法學(xué);2012年06期
8 吳燦輝;李曉玫;;略論刑事司法鑒定啟動(dòng)權(quán)制度的完善[J];福建法學(xué);2012年03期
9 左寧;;我國(guó)刑事專家輔助人制度基本問題論略[J];法學(xué)雜志;2012年12期
10 杜春鵬;李堯;;英國(guó)專家證人制度對(duì)完善我國(guó)司法鑒定人制度之借鑒[J];證據(jù)科學(xué);2012年06期
本文編號(hào)：2211525
本文鏈接：http://sikaile.net/falvlunwen/susongfa/2211525.html
最近更新
教材專著
