本文選題：司法鑒定 + 重復(fù)鑒定��； 參考：《南京大學(xué)》2012年碩士論文

【摘要】：隨著我國(guó)法治建設(shè)的逐步發(fā)展,司法鑒定制度的相關(guān)立法和管理也日趨完善。2005年通過(guò)的《全國(guó)人民代表大會(huì)常務(wù)委員會(huì)關(guān)于司法鑒定管理問(wèn)題的決定》(以下簡(jiǎn)稱《決定》)對(duì)司法鑒定人、鑒定機(jī)構(gòu)的獨(dú)立、司法鑒定的范圍等司法鑒定領(lǐng)域的空白點(diǎn)都做出了相關(guān)規(guī)定,在一定程度上對(duì)我國(guó)司法領(lǐng)域存在的“自偵自鑒”、“自審自鑒”這些問(wèn)題的解決提供了相應(yīng)的制度支持。但是,現(xiàn)實(shí)生活中仍然出現(xiàn)了部分案件中存在多個(gè)鑒定意見(jiàn),進(jìn)行重復(fù)鑒定等問(wèn)題。這表明我國(guó)的司法鑒定制度的詬病并沒(méi)有徹底根除。當(dāng)然,司法鑒定制度中的問(wèn)題“牽一發(fā)而動(dòng)全身”,不僅要對(duì)司法鑒定的程序性問(wèn)題進(jìn)行梳理和規(guī)定,也與我國(guó)的鑒定機(jī)構(gòu)體制相關(guān)；同時(shí),這也反映出我們?cè)诮鉀Q這一問(wèn)題時(shí)忽視了對(duì)司法鑒定的理論探索。有感于此,筆者擬在理論層面對(duì)鑒定意見(jiàn)做一個(gè)梳理,同時(shí)強(qiáng)調(diào)其性質(zhì)在司法實(shí)踐中的重要性；從證據(jù)制度、司法實(shí)踐及鑒定體系對(duì)于司法領(lǐng)域重復(fù)鑒定問(wèn)題的原因進(jìn)行探析,同時(shí)借鑒《關(guān)于辦理(刑案件審查判斷證據(jù)若干問(wèn)題的規(guī)定》中對(duì)死刑案件鑒定意見(jiàn)的審查判斷的規(guī)定,對(duì)解決這一問(wèn)題提出相應(yīng)的對(duì)策和建議,以期對(duì)規(guī)范和遏制重復(fù)鑒定有所幫助。 本文共分四章,全文共三萬(wàn)余字。 第一章為問(wèn)題的提出,首先闡述司法鑒定的概述,從司法鑒定的概念辨析入手,對(duì)學(xué)術(shù)界“司法鑒定”用語(yǔ)之爭(zhēng)進(jìn)行評(píng)析,同時(shí)區(qū)別了“鑒定意見(jiàn)”和“鑒定結(jié)論”這兩個(gè)概念,并肯定“鑒定意見(jiàn)”一詞。其次,對(duì)重復(fù)鑒定的概念及相關(guān)概念辨析。通過(guò)對(duì)我國(guó)司法鑒定的歷史和現(xiàn)狀的分析及國(guó)外司法鑒定的制度介紹,引出我國(guó)司法鑒定中存在的重復(fù)鑒定問(wèn)題。 第二章討論重復(fù)鑒定現(xiàn)象在典型案例中的表現(xiàn)及其影響。通過(guò)對(duì)八個(gè)典型案例中司法鑒定的次數(shù)、時(shí)間、鑒定機(jī)構(gòu)等進(jìn)行對(duì)比分析,總結(jié)重復(fù)鑒定現(xiàn)象的特征,進(jìn)而分析重復(fù)鑒定現(xiàn)象產(chǎn)生的負(fù)面影響。 第三章重點(diǎn)討論重復(fù)鑒定產(chǎn)生的原因,通過(guò)對(duì)刑事鑒定自身問(wèn)題的分析、證據(jù)制度上的原因探析及程序方面的原因分析來(lái)討論重復(fù)鑒定現(xiàn)象在我國(guó)司法領(lǐng)域?qū)映霾桓F的原因。 第四章討論當(dāng)前我國(guó)司法鑒定領(lǐng)域存在的重復(fù)鑒定現(xiàn)象的合理性控制措施。分別就司法鑒定管理體制的相關(guān)改革、刑事證據(jù)制度的完善及相關(guān)刑事訴訟程序的改革等方面進(jìn)行分析。從鑒定管理本身進(jìn)行制度上的約束,從刑事證據(jù)的相關(guān)程序上保障司法鑒定在司法領(lǐng)域的運(yùn)用,最后通過(guò)刑事訴訟程序的完善對(duì)司法鑒定結(jié)論的適用進(jìn)行規(guī)范。
[Abstract]:With the gradual development of the construction of the rule of law in China, The decision of the standing Committee of the National people's Congress on the Administration of Judicial expertise (hereinafter referred to as "the decision"), adopted in 2005, is independent of judicial experts and appraisal institutions. The blank spots in the field of judicial expertise, such as the scope of judicial expertise, have all made relevant provisions, to a certain extent, have provided the corresponding system support for the solution of the problems of "self-investigation and self-examination" and "self-examination self-warning" in the judicial field of our country. However, in real life, there are still some problems in some cases, such as multiple opinions, repeated identification and so on. This shows that the system of judicial expertise in our country has not completely eradicated the denunciation. Of course, the problems in the judicial expertise system "lead to the whole body", not only to sort out and regulate the procedural issues of judicial expertise, but also to relate to the system of our country's appraisal institutions; at the same time, This also reflects that we ignore the theoretical exploration of forensic expertise in solving this problem. In view of this, the author intends to sort out the opinion on the theoretical level, and at the same time emphasize the importance of its nature in the judicial practice, and analyze the reasons for the repeated identification in the judicial field from the evidence system, the judicial practice and the appraisal system. At the same time, drawing lessons from the provisions on handling (some problems concerning the examination and judgment of evidence in criminal cases), the article puts forward the corresponding countermeasures and suggestions to solve this problem, by examining and judging the opinions of the death penalty cases. In order to standardize and contain the repeated identification is helpful. This article is divided into four chapters, the full text of more than 30,000 words. The first chapter is the question, first of all, describes the overview of judicial expertise, from the concept of judicial expertise, the academic "judicial expertise" of the controversy of terms are analyzed. At the same time, it distinguishes the two concepts of "appraisal opinion" and "appraisal conclusion", and affirms the word "appraisal opinion". Secondly, the concept of repeated identification and related concepts are analyzed. Based on the analysis of the history and present situation of judicial expertise in China and the introduction of the system of judicial expertise in foreign countries, the problems of repeated identification in judicial expertise in China are brought forward. The second chapter discusses the performance and influence of repeated identification in typical cases. Through comparative analysis of the number, time and organization of forensic identification in eight typical cases, the characteristics of repeated identification are summarized, and the negative effects of repeated identification are analyzed. The third chapter focuses on the causes of repeated identification, through the analysis of the problems of criminal identification itself, the analysis of the reasons of evidence system and the reasons of procedure to discuss the causes of repeated identification phenomenon in the judicial field of our country. Chapter four discusses the rational control measures of repeated identification in the field of forensic expertise in China. This paper analyzes the relevant reform of the administrative system of forensic expertise, the perfection of the criminal evidence system and the reform of the relevant criminal procedure. From the appraisal management itself carries on the system restraint, from the criminal evidence correlation procedure guarantees the judicial appraisal in the judicial domain application, finally through the criminal procedure consummation to the judicial appraisal conclusion application standard.
【學(xué)位授予單位】：南京大學(xué)
【學(xué)位級(jí)別】：碩士
【學(xué)位授予年份】：2012
【分類號(hào)】：D918.9;D925.2

【參考文獻(xiàn)】

相關(guān)期刊論文 前6條

1 夏渝;“多頭鑒定”、“重復(fù)鑒定”之我見(jiàn)[J];人民檢察;2001年09期

2 魯滌,常林;從親子鑒定的問(wèn)題看標(biāo)準(zhǔn)化規(guī)范化管理的重要性[J];中國(guó)司法鑒定;2001年01期

3 田文昌;司法鑒定與當(dāng)事人訴訟權(quán)利保障[J];中國(guó)司法鑒定;2003年04期

4 郭金霞;“多頭鑒定、重復(fù)鑒定”問(wèn)題探析[J];中國(guó)司法鑒定;2005年05期

5 劉朝寬;;近年來(lái)英國(guó)司法鑒定制度改革的動(dòng)向[J];中國(guó)司法鑒定;2007年04期

6 郝曉琴;劉少文;;英國(guó)司法鑒定管理的改革走向與借鑒[J];中國(guó)司法鑒定;2007年06期

，

本文編號(hào)：1890409