本文選題：司法鑒定　切入點(diǎn)：管理體制　出處：《華中科技大學(xué)》2006年博士論文　論文類型：學(xué)位論文

【摘要】： 科學(xué)、公正、透明的司法鑒定乃是準(zhǔn)確認(rèn)定法律事實(shí),作出正確司法判決,從而實(shí)現(xiàn)司法公正與社會(huì)正義的關(guān)鍵,而科學(xué)、高效的司法鑒定管理體制又是保證司法鑒定能否科學(xué)、公正、透明的前提。近年來,我國司法鑒定管理體制存在的弊端及暴露出的嚴(yán)重問題,已引起社會(huì)各界的廣泛關(guān)注。然而,我國司法鑒定管理體制的改革卻嚴(yán)重滯后于社會(huì)法治進(jìn)程之步伐,甚至出現(xiàn)了與司法鑒定價(jià)值理念相沖突的局面。完善司法鑒定管理體制已成為當(dāng)代社會(huì)主義法制建設(shè)的重要內(nèi)容之一。 本文通過采用歷史分析和實(shí)證分析相結(jié)合,定性分析和定量分析相結(jié)合,一般分析與個(gè)案闡述相結(jié)合的等方法,以司法鑒定的理念追求及其演進(jìn)的軌跡為線索,以當(dāng)代兩大法系主要國家司法鑒定管理體制發(fā)展趨勢為參照,以發(fā)揮司法鑒定管理制度的法治支撐功能為目標(biāo),主要研究了以下內(nèi)容:我國司法鑒定管理體制的應(yīng)然模式選擇,我國司法鑒定人與鑒定標(biāo)準(zhǔn)的具體管理制度設(shè)計(jì),司法鑒定權(quán)的啟動(dòng)與鑒定結(jié)論采信的管理制度,司法鑒定機(jī)構(gòu)與鑒定人責(zé)任管理制度。 本文重點(diǎn)研究了我國司法鑒定啟動(dòng)權(quán)的設(shè)置。本文認(rèn)為我國應(yīng)逐步限制、取消偵查、檢察機(jī)關(guān)享有的司法鑒定啟動(dòng)權(quán),建立偵查、檢察機(jī)關(guān)向法院申請(qǐng)司法鑒定啟動(dòng)權(quán)的制度;同時(shí),應(yīng)淡化法官在司法鑒定啟動(dòng)模式中的職權(quán)色彩,賦予當(dāng)事人平等的申請(qǐng)權(quán),引入“技術(shù)顧問”制度,限制法官自行啟動(dòng)司法鑒定;此外,應(yīng)打破法官在鑒定人選任上的壟斷地位,確立鑒定人的委托由當(dāng)事人協(xié)商或法官指定原則以及建立單一鑒定人制度。 同時(shí),本文還重點(diǎn)研究鑒定結(jié)論的采信管理制度。本文提出鑒定結(jié)論的科學(xué)性采信標(biāo)準(zhǔn),其具體內(nèi)容包括鑒定人應(yīng)當(dāng)受到過相應(yīng)專業(yè)訓(xùn)練,具有鑒定所需要的專業(yè)知識(shí);鑒定結(jié)論所依據(jù)的科學(xué)原理與技術(shù)方法是可靠的、有效的;鑒定的操作程序規(guī)范,設(shè)備先進(jìn)、可靠;被鑒定的對(duì)象客觀、可靠,符合鑒定的要求。 此外,本文還重點(diǎn)研究了鑒定人與鑒定機(jī)構(gòu)法律責(zé)任制度。本文提出我國應(yīng)增設(shè)司法鑒定的民事責(zé)任制度,鑒定人故意作虛假鑒定或因嚴(yán)重不負(fù)責(zé)任給當(dāng)事人合法權(quán)益造成重大經(jīng)濟(jì)損失的,應(yīng)承擔(dān)相應(yīng)的民事責(zé)任。同時(shí)提出,為降低鑒定機(jī)構(gòu)的民事責(zé)任風(fēng)險(xiǎn),應(yīng)成立全國司法鑒定風(fēng)險(xiǎn)保險(xiǎn)基金,一旦發(fā)生司法鑒定民事賠償案件,由該基金承擔(dān)全部費(fèi)用或部分費(fèi)用。 以體系化的司法鑒定管理制度為皈依,本文最后提出了我國未來司法鑒定法的立法案框架及基本管理制度設(shè)計(jì),企圖通過司法鑒定管理制度的法典化推動(dòng)我國司法體制改革的進(jìn)程。
[Abstract]:Scientific, fair and transparent judicial expertise is the key to the accurate identification of legal facts and the making of correct judicial decisions, so as to realize judicial justice and social justice. The efficient management system of judicial expertise is also the premise to ensure the scientific, fair and transparent judicial expertise. In recent years, the shortcomings of the management system of judicial expertise and the serious problems exposed in our country, However, the reform of the judicial appraisal management system in our country has lagged behind the pace of the process of the rule of law in the society. Even the situation of conflict with the value concept of judicial expertise has emerged. Perfecting the management system of judicial expertise has become one of the important contents of the construction of the contemporary socialist legal system. Through the combination of historical analysis and empirical analysis, qualitative analysis and quantitative analysis, general analysis and case study, this paper takes the pursuit of the concept of forensic expertise and the track of its evolution as the clue. Referring to the development trend of the judicial expertise management system in the main countries of the contemporary two legal systems and aiming at giving full play to the supporting function of the rule of law in the judicial expertise management system, this paper mainly studies the following contents: the choice of the ought mode of the judicial expertise management system in our country. The concrete management system design of our country's judicial appraiser and the appraisal standard, the starting of the judicial appraisal right and the management system of the adoption of the appraisal conclusion, the management system of the judicial appraisal organization and the expert's responsibility. This paper focuses on the establishment of the right of initiation of judicial identification in China. This paper holds that our country should gradually restrict, cancel the right of initiating judicial identification, and establish the right of initiation of judicial identification, which is enjoyed by procuratorial organs. The procuratorial organ should apply to the court for the system of initiating the judicial expertise, and at the same time, it should desalinate the color of the judge's power in the mode of judicial identification start-up, endow the parties with the equal right to apply, and introduce the system of "technical adviser". In addition, it is necessary to break the monopoly position of judges in the selection and appointment of experts, to establish the principle of consultation between the parties or the appointment of judges, and to establish the system of single experts. At the same time, this paper also focuses on the management system of the adoption of identification conclusions. This paper puts forward the scientific standards for the adoption of expert conclusions, including that the appraisers should be trained and have the professional knowledge needed for the identification. The scientific principles and technical methods based on the appraisal conclusion are reliable and effective, the operating procedures of identification are standard, the equipment is advanced and reliable, and the object of identification is objective, reliable and meets the requirements of identification. In addition, this paper also focuses on the legal liability system of appraisers and appraisal institutions. This paper puts forward that our country should add the civil liability system of judicial expertise. If the authenticator intentionally makes false appraisal or causes serious economic losses to the parties' legitimate rights and interests as a result of serious irresponsibility, he shall bear the corresponding civil liability. At the same time, it is proposed that, in order to reduce the risk of civil liability of the appraisal institution, The national forensic risk insurance fund should be set up. Once a civil compensation case of judicial expertise occurs, the fund shall bear all or part of the expenses. Finally, this paper puts forward the legislative framework and basic management system design of our country's future judicial expertise law. This paper attempts to promote the reform of our country's judicial system through the codification of judicial expertise management system.
【學(xué)位授予單位】：華中科技大學(xué)
【學(xué)位級(jí)別】：博士
【學(xué)位授予年份】：2006
【分類號(hào)】：D926;D918.9

【引證文獻(xiàn)】

相關(guān)博士學(xué)位論文 前2條

1 吉偉莉;注冊(cè)會(huì)計(jì)師執(zhí)業(yè)責(zé)任鑒定機(jī)制研究[D];江西財(cái)經(jīng)大學(xué);2011年

2 楊書懷;法務(wù)會(huì)計(jì)鑒定采信機(jī)制研究[D];江西財(cái)經(jīng)大學(xué);2011年

相關(guān)碩士學(xué)位論文 前10條

1 何曉丹;中德司法鑒定管理體制的比較研究[D];華東師范大學(xué);2010年

2 黃果;論我國刑事訴訟中的重新鑒定[D];中南大學(xué);2010年

3 龍躍;刑事訴訟中的多頭鑒定、重復(fù)鑒定問題研究[D];浙江大學(xué);2011年

4 黃玉潔;論刑事鑒定結(jié)論生成程序[D];湘潭大學(xué);2011年

5 蔡?hào)|;司法鑒定機(jī)構(gòu)實(shí)驗(yàn)室/檢查機(jī)構(gòu)認(rèn)可活動(dòng)的研究[D];天津大學(xué);2010年

6 張亮;我國司法鑒定人制度的完善[D];燕山大學(xué);2010年

7 趙峰;刑事司法鑒定啟動(dòng)程序研究[D];南京師范大學(xué);2011年

8 李盼盼;論我國人身傷殘鑒定制度的完善[D];燕山大學(xué);2012年

9 吳斐霄;刑事司法鑒定啟動(dòng)權(quán)研究[D];復(fù)旦大學(xué);2011年

10 王劉筠;司法鑒定管理制度研究[D];西南政法大學(xué);2010年

，

本文編號(hào)：1614791