【摘要】：我國于2012年《刑事訴訟法》中首次明確刑事訴訟領(lǐng)域中專家輔助人參與訴訟的規(guī)定,這標(biāo)志著我國刑事訴訟專家輔助人的制度的建立。但隨著專家輔助人制度在刑事為訴訟參與人的訴訟地位如何定位直接決定其訴訟權(quán)利義務(wù)的內(nèi)容,所以刑事訴訟專家輔助人訴訟地位不明確就會(huì)導(dǎo)致其訴訟權(quán)利義務(wù)內(nèi)容不明確,最終使其難以在訴訟活動(dòng)中難以有效的發(fā)揮作用。因此專家輔助人在刑事訴訟中究竟應(yīng)該適合怎樣的訴訟地位成了刑事法學(xué)界亟待解決的問題。通過實(shí)例案件的可以反映出刑事訴訟專家輔助人在我國司法實(shí)踐中的現(xiàn)實(shí)處境,對(duì)其目前訴訟地位不適性有直觀的判斷,再結(jié)合理論分析得出刑事訴訟專家輔助人最為合適的職業(yè)屬性。從而通過這些屬性準(zhǔn)確定位其在刑事訴訟中應(yīng)當(dāng)?shù)脑V訟地位,最后在這—訴訟地位的基礎(chǔ)上構(gòu)建出訴訟權(quán)利義務(wù)的內(nèi)容。
[Abstract]:In the Criminal procedure Law of our country in 2012, the provisions on the participation of the expert assistant in the field of criminal procedure were made clear for the first time, which marked the establishment of the system of the expert assistant in the criminal procedure in our country. However, with the expert assistant system in criminal proceedings for participants in the status of litigation how to directly determine the content of their litigation rights and obligations, Therefore, the lack of clear litigation status of criminal litigation experts will lead to unclear content of litigation rights and obligations, which makes it difficult to play an effective role in litigation activities. Therefore, what kind of litigation status should be suitable for expert assistant in criminal proceedings has become an urgent problem in criminal law circles. The case can reflect the actual situation of the criminal procedure expert assistant in our country's judicial practice, and has the intuitive judgment to its current lawsuit status unwell, Combined with the theoretical analysis, the most suitable professional attributes of the expert assistant in criminal procedure are obtained. Through these attributes, it can accurately locate its litigation status in criminal proceedings, and finally construct the content of litigation rights and obligations on the basis of this-litigation status.
【學(xué)位授予單位】：哈爾濱商業(yè)大學(xué)
【學(xué)位級(jí)別】：碩士
【學(xué)位授予年份】：2017
【分類號(hào)】：D925.2

【參考文獻(xiàn)】

相關(guān)期刊論文 前10條

1 李學(xué)軍;朱夢妮;;專家輔助人制度研析[J];法學(xué)家;2015年01期

2 鄒明理;;專家輔助人出庭協(xié)助質(zhì)證實(shí)務(wù)探討[J];中國司法鑒定;2014年01期

3 龍宗智;孫末非;;非鑒定專家制度在我國刑事訴訟中的完善[J];吉林大學(xué)社會(huì)科學(xué)學(xué)報(bào);2014年01期

4 李想;;英美專家證人制度對(duì)我國的借鑒意義[J];赤子(中旬);2013年11期

5 樊崇義;吳光升;;鑒定意見的審查與運(yùn)用規(guī)則[J];中國刑事法雜志;2013年05期

6 尹麗華;;刑事訴訟專家輔助人制度的解讀與完善[J];中國司法鑒定;2013年03期

7 劉廣三;汪楓;;論我國刑事訴訟專家輔助人制度的完善[J];中國司法鑒定;2013年02期

8 劉鑫;;職業(yè)鑒定人制度的困境與對(duì)策[J];中國政法大學(xué)學(xué)報(bào);2012年06期

9 吳常青;王彪;;論我國刑事鑒定意見審查判斷權(quán)的實(shí)現(xiàn)[J];中國司法鑒定;2012年05期

10 欒時(shí)春;張明澤;;論我國司法鑒定人對(duì)鑒定事項(xiàng)的釋明[J];中國司法鑒定;2012年04期

，

本文編號(hào)：2255034