【作者】 张琪；

【导师】 李蓉；

【作者基本信息】 湘潭大学 ， 法律硕士（法学）（专业学位）， 2016， 硕士

【摘要】 刑事鉴定是查明案件事实的重要方法和手段,对刑事证明活动具有重要作用。在刑事鉴定中,鉴定程序的科学性、合理性不仅是保障鉴定意见正确的前提,而且关系到诉讼公正的实现。然而,我国现有的关于刑事鉴定程序的法律规范较少,且过于原则和抽象,在司法实践中操作性不强。立法的不完善导致实践中鉴定意见的“生产”环节成为一个封闭的过程,案件是否进行鉴定、由谁鉴定、鉴定的具体实施过程,都由侦控机关掌控,当事人既没有知情权也没有参与权。封闭化的鉴定程序不仅有违程序正义之理念,也使得公众对鉴定意见的公正性产生怀疑,进而产生对判决的不信任,损害我国的司法权威。因此,对我国刑事鉴定程序进行改革完善势在必行。2012年《刑事诉讼法》将“鉴定结论”修改为“鉴定意见”,对鉴定意见进行了科学定位,明确了鉴定意见系普通证据,这就为当事人参与鉴定意见的形成过程提供了立法依据,同时也为鉴定问题的权力重新配置提供了基础。此外,随着司法改革的深入,“诉讼化”理念已被社会大众广泛的接受,人们越来越多的期望以“诉讼化”的方式解决纠纷,如司法实践中构建起的不起诉的听证、审前的预审、申诉的听证等。“诉讼”即是一种“三方构造”,当事人可参与其中,其重要特征就是公开,通过公开的机制保障当事人的合法权益,防止专横、擅断,让当事人看见公正的实现。因而,将我国的刑事鉴定程序纳入诉讼化的轨道,既能发挥鉴定程序作为法律程序本身所具有的价值功能,又能保障当事人的权利,让当事人看见公正的实现。对刑事鉴定程序进行诉讼化改革,目标在于革除刑事鉴定程序存在的弊端,保障刑事鉴定工作的顺利开展,实现诉讼公正。具体构建如下：一、刑事鉴定启动程序阶段。赋予当事人初鉴申请权,鉴定机构和鉴定人员的选择权以及鉴定委托受理的监督权；规范启动权行使,在保留侦控机关鉴定决定权的基础上,赋予人民法院最终的鉴定决定权。二、刑事鉴定实施阶段。规范刑事鉴定实施操作规范,明确鉴定方法、取样规则的最低标准。赋予当事人、侦查人员、检察人员鉴定实施过程的在场权。对于强制性鉴定事项,由法官对刑事鉴定实施程序主持。建立备鉴制度。更多还原

【Abstract】 Criminal identification is the important method ascertaining the true situation that is very important to criminal demonstration.In criminal identification,the scientificity.fairness and rationality of identification procedure is not only the premise of ensuring the expert opinions correct,but also relate to the achievments of the justice for proceedings. However,In judicial pactice,the prior criminal identification procedures regulations is not much and not easy to operat. Imperfect of the legislation led to the "production" link of the expert opinions become a closed process.Investigatibe and prosectibe organization commad all things about case whether and who to identified.the parites have no right to know and participate.The closure identification is not only contrary to the concept of the procedural justice,but also makes the public doubt the fairness of the expert opinion and do not trust the judgment,damaging the authority of the judicial. Therefore, Reformming and perfecting the criminal identification of PRC is imperative.2012 years "Criminal Procedure Code" modifies "expert conclusion" to expert opinion " clearly and scientificly defined the expert opinions.Providing the legislative basis for the part attend to the process.And also for the authority to identify problems reconfiguration provides the basis. In addition, with the deepening of judicial reform, "litigation" concept has been widely accepted in the community, more and more people expect to "action-oriented" approach to resolve disputes, such as the build up of judicial practice not to prosecute hearings, pre-trial before the appeals hearings is an example. "Litigation" that is a "tripartite structure",the parties can be involved, publicity is very important characters.Through public mechanisms to protect the legitimate interests of the parties, to prevent arbitrary, so that the parties to see the realization of justice. Thus, the identification of criminal Litigation procedures into orbit, can give play to the process value aim, and protect the rights of the parties.On the Litigation reform of the criminal Identification procedure, aims to get rid of the drawbacks of the criminal identification to guarantee criminal identifications development of the work smoothly, to achieve justice proceedings. Constructed as follows in details:First, Starting the program.The parties who can participate and supervise have intialviews right and the choice.Under the premise of the retention at the decision power of Detective agencies identified, specificating start procedure and giving the people’s court of final decision-making authority. Second, the implementation phase of criminal identification. Perfect sampling rules and identifying implementation specifications, giving investigators, prosecutors presence rights, the right to the presence of the parties, as well as the right to challenge the rights of identified secondary hire people. Setting an obligatory identification and preside by a judge clearly. Perfecting preparation system.更多还原