【摘要】：在科技日新月異發(fā)展的今天,有些案件法官們已不可能完全了解其中的事實(shí),因而難以作出準(zhǔn)確的判斷,他們必須借助并依賴(lài)鑒定專(zhuān)家們的意見(jiàn),且依賴(lài)于司法鑒定人的專(zhuān)業(yè)技術(shù)力量來(lái)幫助明察、知曉案件事實(shí)。訴訟中,由于法官和當(dāng)事人對(duì)專(zhuān)門(mén)問(wèn)題不具有相關(guān)專(zhuān)業(yè)的知識(shí),不易對(duì)專(zhuān)家們作出的鑒定結(jié)論作出實(shí)質(zhì)性的判斷,因此司法鑒定人有時(shí)已實(shí)際成為“事實(shí)的裁判者”。另外在我國(guó)司法實(shí)踐中還存在自偵自鑒、自檢自鑒、自審自鑒、司法鑒定人素質(zhì)參差不齊、司法鑒定人出庭率低等現(xiàn)象,這些現(xiàn)象已導(dǎo)致當(dāng)事人對(duì)司法鑒定人及對(duì)他們做出的鑒定結(jié)論產(chǎn)生信任危機(jī),嚴(yán)重影響到了司法的公正。 我國(guó)司法鑒定人制度目前存在的問(wèn)題并不是司法鑒定人制度本身所造成的,也不是司法鑒定人制度不適合我國(guó)國(guó)情。表面上看,司法鑒定人制度存在的問(wèn)題是由于鑒定人管理上的部門(mén)化、地方化所造成的。鑒定人制度存在的問(wèn)題從深層次分析也不能單純地歸結(jié)于鑒定人制度立法不完善,主要原因是我國(guó)司法制度長(zhǎng)期受前蘇聯(lián)的強(qiáng)職權(quán)主義理論的影響所致。盡管我國(guó)現(xiàn)行的三大訴訟法在訴訟模式的選擇上有了重大改觀(guān),但實(shí)質(zhì)上卻仍帶有強(qiáng)職權(quán)主義的色彩。表現(xiàn)在司法鑒定人制度中,就是沒(méi)有將司法鑒定權(quán)進(jìn)行合理地分配,也沒(méi)有對(duì)權(quán)力進(jìn)行制約,從而導(dǎo)致在訴訟中嚴(yán)重忽視當(dāng)事人的訴訟權(quán)利,這種訴訟機(jī)制的嚴(yán)重失衡使當(dāng)事人的訴權(quán)極度弱化,鑒定人在此背景下出具的鑒定結(jié)論也就時(shí)常成為擁有超級(jí)效力的證據(jù)。 司法鑒定人制度存在的諸多問(wèn)題已引發(fā)人們深思。我國(guó)的司法鑒定人制度何去何從,是采取英美法系的專(zhuān)家證人制度還是采取大陸法系的鑒定人制度?學(xué)者們和司法工作人員各抒己見(jiàn),爭(zhēng)論不止。無(wú)論我國(guó)司法鑒定人制度選擇何種模式,在制度的移植與建立過(guò)程中,我們都必須強(qiáng)調(diào)理論要能聯(lián)系實(shí)際,優(yōu)選的外來(lái)法律制度要能與我國(guó)的國(guó)情兼容,只有這樣才能真正創(chuàng)建具有中國(guó)特色的鑒定人制度。 2005年2月28日通過(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(chēng)為《決定》),不僅統(tǒng)一了鑒定人的資格及管理,解決了司法鑒定中的混亂局面,而且還明確司法鑒定的性質(zhì),《決定》同時(shí)還對(duì)司法鑒定人的角色進(jìn)行了重新定位�；诖�,本文在對(duì)國(guó)外司法鑒定人制度進(jìn)行比較研究的基礎(chǔ)上,運(yùn)用鑒定人制度的一般理論,結(jié)合《決定》的規(guī)定,先剖析了我國(guó)司法鑒定人
[Abstract]:Today, with the rapid development of science and technology, it is impossible for judges in some cases to fully understand the facts among them, which makes it difficult to make accurate judgments. They must rely on and rely on the opinions of expert experts. And rely on the expertise of judicial experts to help understand and know the facts of the case. In litigation, because the judge and the party do not have the related professional knowledge on the specialized question, it is difficult to make the substantive judgment to the expert's appraisal conclusion, so the judicial expert sometimes has actually become "the fact judge". In addition, in the judicial practice of our country, there are some phenomena, such as self-detection, self-examination, uneven quality of judicial connoisseurs, and low court attendance rate of judicial connoisseurs. These phenomena have led to a crisis of trust in judicial connoisseurs and their conclusions, which has seriously affected the justice of justice. The problems existing in the system of judicial appraisers in our country are not caused by the system itself, nor is it not suitable for the national conditions of our country. On the surface, the problems existing in the system of judicial experts are caused by the division and localization of experts' management. The problems existing in the appraiser system can not be attributed to the imperfect legislation of the appraiser system. The main reason is that the judicial system of our country has been influenced by the former Soviet Union's theory of strong authority for a long time. Although the three procedural laws of our country have made great changes in the choice of litigation mode, in fact, they still have the color of strong authority. In the system of judicial appraiser, it does not distribute the right of judicial appraisal reasonably, nor restrict the power, which leads to the serious neglect of the litigant's litigation right in the lawsuit. The serious imbalance of the litigation mechanism makes the litigant's right of action extremely weak, and the expert's conclusion under this background often becomes the evidence with super validity. Many problems existing in the system of judicial appraisers have aroused people's deep thought. What is the future of the judicial expert system in our country? should we adopt the expert witness system in the common law system or the expert witness system in the continental law system? Scholars and judicial staff expressed their views and argued. No matter what kind of mode our judicial expert system chooses, in the process of transplanting and establishing the system, we must emphasize that the theory should be able to connect with the practice, and the foreign legal system should be compatible with the national conditions of our country. Only in this way can we really create a system of appraisers with Chinese characteristics. The decision of the standing Committee of the National people's Congress on the Administration of Forensic expertise (hereinafter referred to as "the decision"), adopted on February 28, 2005, not only unifies the qualifications and management of experts, It resolves the confusion in judicial expertise, and clarifies the nature of judicial expertise. At the same time, it relocates the role of judicial experts. Based on this, this paper, on the basis of comparative study of the foreign judicial appraiser system, applies the general theory of the appraiser system and combines the provisions of "decision" to analyze the judicial appraiser in our country first.
【學(xué)位授予單位】：安徽大學(xué)
【學(xué)位級(jí)別】：碩士
【學(xué)位授予年份】：2005
【分類(lèi)號(hào)】：D918.9

【引證文獻(xiàn)】

相關(guān)碩士學(xué)位論文 前2條

1 王靜;知識(shí)產(chǎn)權(quán)訴訟專(zhuān)家證人研究[D];河北大學(xué);2007年

2 宋揚(yáng);論我國(guó)司法鑒定人資格的現(xiàn)狀與改革[D];中南大學(xué);2009年

，

本文編號(hào)：2358444