【摘要】：鑒定結(jié)論給現(xiàn)代訴訟帶來了嚴(yán)峻的挑戰(zhàn)。也許有點悖論的味道,鑒定結(jié)論已經(jīng)成為訴訟活動中最具投機性和主觀性的成分。作為鑒定結(jié)論審查評斷主體的法官急需相關(guān)理論的指導(dǎo)。同時,隨著訴訟模式的對抗性日益增強,當(dāng)事雙方對鑒定結(jié)論科學(xué)性的審查工作也日趨實質(zhì)化,此外,如何提高鑒定結(jié)論的客觀性也成為亟待解決的一個問題。 一段時間以來,有關(guān)鑒定結(jié)論科學(xué)性的爭論在國內(nèi)外都十分激烈,鑒定結(jié)論的地位和作用受到了前所未有的挑戰(zhàn)。有些學(xué)者對司法理性主義提出了質(zhì)疑,并進(jìn)而否定鑒定結(jié)論的科學(xué)性。 本文就鑒定結(jié)論的科學(xué)性根基問題進(jìn)行了分析,并對鑒定結(jié)論科學(xué)性的審查評斷工作進(jìn)行了探討,同時,相應(yīng)地論及鑒定結(jié)論科學(xué)性的保障問題。本文共分兩大部分,除引言外,共計約28,000字。 探討鑒定結(jié)論的科學(xué)性問題,必須從鑒定結(jié)論的科學(xué)性根基入手。本文第一部分著重論述鑒定結(jié)論的科學(xué)性根基。具體而言,鑒定結(jié)論的科學(xué)性根基包括以下兩個方面的因素:鑒定結(jié)論的“科學(xué)”基礎(chǔ)問題,以及司法鑒定的特殊性問題。從某種層面上講,鑒定結(jié)論源自司法鑒定活動,討論鑒定結(jié)論的科學(xué)性基礎(chǔ),毋寧說是探討司法鑒定的科學(xué)性基礎(chǔ)問題。 針對鑒定結(jié)論的“科學(xué)”基礎(chǔ)問題,本文討論了司法鑒定與作為其基礎(chǔ)的“科學(xué)”的關(guān)系,并剖析了科學(xué)真理與實用主義、理性主義與科學(xué)真理之間的關(guān)系。從認(rèn)識論的角度出發(fā),科學(xué)知識作為鑒定結(jié)論的基礎(chǔ)仍然具有其正當(dāng)性,通過否定科學(xué)本身來動搖鑒定結(jié)論科學(xué)性無疑是一種“無謂之舉”。但同時,應(yīng)當(dāng)注意到,司法鑒定活動并不等同于傳統(tǒng)意義上的科學(xué)活動,為了明確這種差異,需要考察司法鑒定所具有的特殊性。 考慮到司法鑒定作為應(yīng)用科學(xué)的特殊性所在,本文具體探討了司法鑒定領(lǐng)域內(nèi)在的沖突,從法庭上的科學(xué)結(jié)論、法庭上的鑒定人員、以及法庭上科學(xué)的確定性三個方面分析了科學(xué)與法律之間的復(fù)雜關(guān)系。司法系統(tǒng)將探求真理作為獲取公正審判的一種手段�？茖W(xué)共同體將真理視為知識的組成部分。盡管兩者都以一些基礎(chǔ)的方式探求“真理”,但司法系統(tǒng)和科學(xué)共同體在內(nèi)在的功能、價值和目標(biāo)上存在著很大的區(qū)別。鑒定人員和事實裁判者應(yīng)當(dāng)認(rèn)識到這種區(qū)別,從而使科學(xué)對司法系統(tǒng)起到積極的作用。 本文第二部分探討了鑒定結(jié)論科學(xué)性之審查評斷問題。在審判中心主
[Abstract]:The conclusion of appraisal brings severe challenge to modern litigation. Perhaps paradoxical, expertise has become the most speculative and subjective element of litigation. The judge, as the subject of appraisal conclusion review, needs guidance from relevant theories. At the same time, with the increasing adversarial of litigation mode, the examination of the scientific conclusion of the two parties is becoming more and more substantial. In addition, how to improve the objectivity of the conclusion has become a problem to be solved urgently. For a period of time, the controversy about the scientific nature of the appraisal conclusion is very fierce at home and abroad, and the status and function of the appraisal conclusion have been facing unprecedented challenge. Some scholars have questioned the judicial rationalism and denied the scientific nature of the conclusion. This paper analyzes the scientific foundation of the appraisal conclusion, probes into the examination and evaluation of the scientific nature of the appraisal conclusion, and at the same time, discusses the guarantee of the scientific nature of the appraisal conclusion. This paper is divided into two parts, in addition to the introduction, a total of about 28000 words. To probe into the scientific problem of the appraisal conclusion, we must start with the scientific foundation of the appraisal conclusion. The first part of this paper focuses on the scientific basis of the appraisal conclusions. In particular, the scientific basis of the conclusion includes the following two factors: the scientific basis of the conclusion and the particularity of the judicial expertise. On a certain level, the conclusion of identification originates from the activity of judicial expertise. It is better to discuss the scientific basis of the conclusion of identification than to discuss the scientific basis of judicial expertise. In this paper, we discuss the relationship between forensic expertise and "science" as its basis, and analyze the relationship between scientific truth and pragmatism, rationalism and scientific truth. From the perspective of epistemology, scientific knowledge as the basis of the appraisal conclusion still has its legitimacy. It is no doubt a "meaningless act" to shake the scientific conclusion by negating the science itself. But at the same time, it should be noted that forensic expertise is not equal to the traditional scientific activities, in order to clarify this difference, it is necessary to examine the particularity of forensic expertise. Considering the particularity of forensic expertise as applied science, this paper specifically discusses the inherent conflicts in the field of forensic expertise. The complex relationship between science and law is analyzed in three aspects: the certainty of science in court. The judicial system uses the search for truth as a means of obtaining a fair trial. The scientific community regards truth as an integral part of knowledge. Although both seek "truth" in some basic ways, the judicial system and the scientific community have great differences in their internal functions, values and goals. Judges and fact judges should recognize this distinction so that science can play a positive role in the judicial system. The second part of this paper discusses the scientific evaluation of the appraisal conclusions. At the trial center.
【學(xué)位授予單位】：西南政法大學(xué)
【學(xué)位級別】：碩士
【學(xué)位授予年份】：2005
【分類號】：D918.9;D915.13

【引證文獻(xiàn)】

相關(guān)博士學(xué)位論文 前1條

1 陶濤;法醫(yī)學(xué)尸體解剖鑒定結(jié)論的規(guī)范化研究[D];四川大學(xué);2007年

相關(guān)碩士學(xué)位論文 前6條

1 姚蕾;論我國司法鑒定意見認(rèn)證規(guī)則之構(gòu)建[D];復(fù)旦大學(xué);2010年

2 李瑩;刑事科學(xué)證據(jù)研究[D];山東大學(xué);2011年

3 王瓊仙;論我國刑事鑒定結(jié)論的證據(jù)能力[D];西南政法大學(xué);2008年

4 朱勝;刑事物證鑒定結(jié)論科學(xué)性問題研究[D];西南政法大學(xué);2008年

5 張琪;刑事鑒定結(jié)論認(rèn)證制度研究[D];華東政法大學(xué);2009年

6 陳永佳;論刑事訴訟中科學(xué)證據(jù)的認(rèn)證[D];西南政法大學(xué);2010年

，

本文編號：2305924