訴訟中重新鑒定問題研究
發(fā)布時(shí)間：2019-03-22 20:08
【摘要】：重新鑒定是指在訴訟活動(dòng)中,當(dāng)事人或訴訟代理人對(duì)原鑒定意見有異議時(shí),向辦案機(jī)關(guān)提出申請(qǐng)就同一鑒定事項(xiàng)進(jìn)行再次鑒定,或者辦案機(jī)關(guān)依據(jù)職權(quán)對(duì)有爭(zhēng)議或?qū)彶榘l(fā)現(xiàn)有明顯問題的鑒定意見另行委托所進(jìn)行的鑒定。重新鑒定是司法鑒定救濟(jì)程序的一種,符合正當(dāng)程序的要求,對(duì)于檢驗(yàn)和糾正不合理的鑒定意見具有重要作用,有利于保護(hù)當(dāng)事人合法權(quán)利,幫助當(dāng)事人去疑解惑,同時(shí)也對(duì)鑒定意見科學(xué)性能起到起到有效監(jiān)督作用,有利于提高鑒定人的責(zé)任心。 由于我國至今在司法鑒定方面無專門的法律,鑒定領(lǐng)域內(nèi)的一些基本問題只是由2005年全國人大常委會(huì)出臺(tái)的《決定》及2007年司法部《司法鑒定程序通則》所規(guī)定,效力和可操作性都不高。在訴訟領(lǐng)域,新修訂的《刑事訴訟法》與《民事訴訟法》于2013年1月1日起實(shí)施,兩大訴訟法的修改均涉及了有關(guān)司法鑒定的內(nèi)容。但從總體來看,兩大訴訟法及其司法解釋中,關(guān)于司法鑒定的規(guī)定大多是原則性的,有關(guān)司法鑒定活動(dòng)的具體制度、程序、規(guī)則的規(guī)定和條款不多,尤其是針對(duì)重新鑒定的規(guī)定較少,且可操作性較差,司法實(shí)踐中難以準(zhǔn)確把握和執(zhí)行。 在司法實(shí)踐中,重新鑒定過多有很大危害,有時(shí)候多份鑒定意見無一相同,法官和當(dāng)事人無所適從,“打官司”變成了“打鑒定”,導(dǎo)致案件久拖不決,既浪費(fèi)訴訟資源,又極大損害當(dāng)事人的合法利益。不合理重新鑒定問題的原因是多方面的,包括司法鑒定機(jī)構(gòu)設(shè)置存在缺陷、司法鑒定準(zhǔn)入門檻過低、鑒定標(biāo)準(zhǔn)的不統(tǒng)一、鑒定人水平參差不齊、鑒定人出庭作證率低、鑒定意見的判斷與審核流于形式、司法鑒定市場(chǎng)化帶來巨大沖擊及一些客觀方面的原因。 本文從規(guī)范重新鑒定的法制及管理兩個(gè)角度提出了規(guī)范重新鑒定的對(duì)策建議,從法制角度提出了加快制定司法鑒定法,制定全國統(tǒng)一的司法鑒定標(biāo)準(zhǔn),進(jìn)一步完善鑒定意見審查判斷制度、司法鑒定人出庭質(zhì)證制度4條舉措；從管理角度提出了完善司法鑒定管理制度,建立鑒定信息互動(dòng)制度,完善司法鑒定人執(zhí)業(yè)活動(dòng)監(jiān)管制度等3條舉措。
[Abstract]:Re-appraisal means that, in the course of a lawsuit, when the party or the litigant's agent objects to the original appraisal opinion, he shall apply to the case-handling organ for re-appraisal on the same appraisal matter, Or the case-handling organ shall, ex officio, entrust the appraisal opinions separately entrusted to the dispute or the examination and discovery of obvious problems. Re-appraisal is one of the remedy procedures of judicial expertise, which conforms to the requirements of due process, plays an important role in testing and correcting unreasonable expert opinions, is conducive to protecting the legitimate rights of the parties concerned, and helps the parties to resolve doubts and doubts. At the same time, it also plays an effective role in supervising the scientific performance of appraisal opinions, which is helpful to improve the appraiser's sense of responsibility. Since there is no special law on judicial expertise in China so far, some basic problems in the field of expertise are only stipulated in the decision issued by the standing Committee of the National people's Congress in 2005 and in the General rules of procedure for Judicial expertise of the Ministry of Justice in 2007. Both effectiveness and maneuverability are not high. In the field of litigation, the newly revised Code of Criminal procedure and the Code of Civil procedure came into effect on January 1, 2013. The amendments to the two major procedural laws both involve the contents of judicial expertise. However, in general, in the two major procedural laws and their judicial interpretations, most of the provisions on judicial expertise are principled, and there are few provisions and clauses concerning the specific system, procedure, rules and rules of judicial expertise activities. Especially for the re-identification of the provisions less, and poor maneuverability, judicial practice is difficult to accurately grasp and implement. In judicial practice, it is very harmful to re-evaluate too many opinions, sometimes not one of the same opinions is the same, judges and parties are at a loss as to what to do, and "litigation" becomes "appraisal", resulting in a prolonged delay in the decision of a case and a waste of litigation resources. And a great deal of damage to the legitimate interests of the parties. The reasons for the unreasonable re-identification are many aspects, including the defects in the establishment of judicial authentication institutions, the low threshold of access to judicial expertise, the inconsistency of appraisal standards, the uneven level of experts, and the low rate of forensic testimony in court. The judgment and examination of the appraisal opinion is only formal, and the marketization of the judicial appraisal brings great impact and some objective reasons. In this paper, the author puts forward the countermeasures and suggestions from the angle of legal system and management of standardizing re-appraisal, and from the angle of legal system, puts forward the suggestion of speeding up the formulation of judicial authentication law and the formulation of unified national standards of judicial authentication. Further improve the system of examination and judgment of expert opinions, judicial experts appear in court to cross-examine the system of four measures; From the management point of view, this paper puts forward three measures, such as perfecting the judicial identification management system, establishing the identification information interaction system, and perfecting the supervision system of the judicial expert's practice activities.
【學(xué)位授予單位】：延邊大學(xué)
【學(xué)位級(jí)別】：碩士
【學(xué)位授予年份】：2014
【分類號(hào)】：D925.1;D925.2
本文編號(hào)：2445875
[Abstract]:Re-appraisal means that, in the course of a lawsuit, when the party or the litigant's agent objects to the original appraisal opinion, he shall apply to the case-handling organ for re-appraisal on the same appraisal matter, Or the case-handling organ shall, ex officio, entrust the appraisal opinions separately entrusted to the dispute or the examination and discovery of obvious problems. Re-appraisal is one of the remedy procedures of judicial expertise, which conforms to the requirements of due process, plays an important role in testing and correcting unreasonable expert opinions, is conducive to protecting the legitimate rights of the parties concerned, and helps the parties to resolve doubts and doubts. At the same time, it also plays an effective role in supervising the scientific performance of appraisal opinions, which is helpful to improve the appraiser's sense of responsibility. Since there is no special law on judicial expertise in China so far, some basic problems in the field of expertise are only stipulated in the decision issued by the standing Committee of the National people's Congress in 2005 and in the General rules of procedure for Judicial expertise of the Ministry of Justice in 2007. Both effectiveness and maneuverability are not high. In the field of litigation, the newly revised Code of Criminal procedure and the Code of Civil procedure came into effect on January 1, 2013. The amendments to the two major procedural laws both involve the contents of judicial expertise. However, in general, in the two major procedural laws and their judicial interpretations, most of the provisions on judicial expertise are principled, and there are few provisions and clauses concerning the specific system, procedure, rules and rules of judicial expertise activities. Especially for the re-identification of the provisions less, and poor maneuverability, judicial practice is difficult to accurately grasp and implement. In judicial practice, it is very harmful to re-evaluate too many opinions, sometimes not one of the same opinions is the same, judges and parties are at a loss as to what to do, and "litigation" becomes "appraisal", resulting in a prolonged delay in the decision of a case and a waste of litigation resources. And a great deal of damage to the legitimate interests of the parties. The reasons for the unreasonable re-identification are many aspects, including the defects in the establishment of judicial authentication institutions, the low threshold of access to judicial expertise, the inconsistency of appraisal standards, the uneven level of experts, and the low rate of forensic testimony in court. The judgment and examination of the appraisal opinion is only formal, and the marketization of the judicial appraisal brings great impact and some objective reasons. In this paper, the author puts forward the countermeasures and suggestions from the angle of legal system and management of standardizing re-appraisal, and from the angle of legal system, puts forward the suggestion of speeding up the formulation of judicial authentication law and the formulation of unified national standards of judicial authentication. Further improve the system of examination and judgment of expert opinions, judicial experts appear in court to cross-examine the system of four measures; From the management point of view, this paper puts forward three measures, such as perfecting the judicial identification management system, establishing the identification information interaction system, and perfecting the supervision system of the judicial expert's practice activities.
【學(xué)位授予單位】：延邊大學(xué)
【學(xué)位級(jí)別】：碩士
【學(xué)位授予年份】：2014
【分類號(hào)】：D925.1;D925.2
【參考文獻(xiàn)】
相關(guān)期刊論文 前10條
1 鄒明理;對(duì)《關(guān)于司法鑒定管理問題的決定》中幾個(gè)有爭(zhēng)議問題的思考[J];中國司法;2005年08期
2 鄒明理;;合理控制重新鑒定和有效解決鑒定爭(zhēng)議措施探討[J];中國司法;2008年08期
3 鄒明理;;重新鑒定增多原因與對(duì)策研究[J];證據(jù)科學(xué);2012年01期
4 杜國明;楊建廣;;司法鑒定質(zhì)證程序問題研究[J];華南農(nóng)業(yè)大學(xué)學(xué)報(bào)(社會(huì)科學(xué)版);2007年01期
5 尚華;;論鑒定意見的審查判斷[J];人民司法;2011年17期
6 唐磊;陳利紅;;論鑒定結(jié)論的質(zhì)證[J];中國司法鑒定;2005年06期
7 周侃;張宇坤;;司法鑒定與質(zhì)證程序法理關(guān)系探究[J];中國司法鑒定;2006年03期
8 方侃樂;沈路峰;魏金漢;;法院在委托司法鑒定中存在的問題與對(duì)策[J];中國司法鑒定;2007年02期
9 齊樹潔;董揚(yáng);;鑒定人出庭質(zhì)證規(guī)則的比較分析[J];中國司法鑒定;2009年04期
10 程軍偉;;由“華山”筆跡鑒定案件反思鑒定若干理論問題[J];中國司法鑒定;2010年02期
，本文編號(hào)：2445875
本文鏈接：http://sikaile.net/falvlunwen/susongfa/2445875.html
最近更新
教材專著
