【作者】 姜志刚；

【导师】 余松龄；

【作者基本信息】 湖南大学 ， 法律， 2007， 硕士

【摘要】 刑事司法鉴定,是指在刑事诉讼活动中鉴定人运用科学技术或者专门知识对刑事诉讼涉及的专门性问题进行鉴别和判断并提供鉴定意见的活动。刑事司法鉴定是整个刑事诉讼司法活动中至关重要的一项专门工作,在刑事诉讼活动中具有不可代替的作用。刑事司法鉴定结论是刑事诉讼证据的一种,是司法机关借以查明案件事实,认定案件性质,正确定罪量刑,保证办案质量的重要依据。刑事司法鉴定的目的是要解决刑事案件中的专门性问题,鉴定的分类应当与解决专门性问题需要利用的专业知识分类相适应。刑事司法鉴定结论只与科学技术及鉴定人的专门知识有关,而与鉴定人所在机构的性质、级别和鉴定人职称的高低无关。科学的鉴定结论,不因鉴定人不同、鉴定地点不同或鉴定时间先后不同而有所不同。刑事司法鉴定只有科学性没有权威性。司法鉴定形成的结论只能尊重和服从科学,不能屈服于科学之外的任何因素。对于案件中多个不同的鉴定结论,应当按照证据认定的方法和规则,通过对鉴定结论合法性和科学性的审查评断决定取舍,而不应简单地选择所谓权威性鉴定结论。从鉴定结论与其他证据的关系看,经合法程序形成的鉴定结论与其他形式的证据一样具有同等的法律效力,都必须经过查证属实才能作为定案的根据,并不具有优先采信或必须采信的证据地位。一个国家的刑事司法鉴定制度是以其司法制度和法律文化传统为基础的,但是也在一定程度上反映人类社会的共同发展规律和科学技术水平。换言之,不同国家的刑事司法鉴定制度之间既有个性或差异之处,也有共性或共同之处。“他山之石,可以攻玉”,国外刑事司法鉴定制度的立法经验,应当成为我国重塑刑事司法鉴定制度的借鉴。当今世界,英美法系和大陆法系在司法鉴定制度上的差异主要是由诉讼制度的特点所决定。两大法系在刑事司法鉴定制度上虽有差异,但对司法鉴定机构的管理、司法鉴定的启动权和决定权、鉴定人的资格、鉴定人出庭、鉴定结论的法律效力等制度和程序性问题均作了较为详尽的规定。对两大法系不同的鉴定制度的优劣长短进行比较,对完善我国刑事司法鉴定制度具有重要意义。我国现行刑事司法鉴定制度存在较多弊端和空白。鉴定立法严重滞后;鉴定机构设置重叠、运行混乱;对鉴定人员缺乏科学、合理的管理机制;鉴定程序、鉴定标准缺乏规范等。长期以来,鉴定机构多只出具书面鉴定结论,鲜有出庭质证。鉴定人员不出庭,法官对鉴定结论的采信随意化。重构我国刑事司法鉴定制度应当立足于中国国情,考虑当前的诉讼制度和社会经济与文化背景,从以下几方面着手:建立科学、中立、公正的鉴定机构;按所从事的不同鉴定类别,分别进行鉴定人资格全国统一考试,从立法上加强对鉴定人的管理,明确规定鉴定人的权利、义务,健全对鉴定人的责任追究机制,规范鉴定标准、鉴定程序。更多还原

【Abstract】 Criminal case judicial expertise is an activity that the experts use the sciertific technology or special knowledge to authenticate and identify the special maters in the criminal procedure and provide an expert opinion. Criminal case judicial expertise is a very important special work in the whole criminal proceedings. It has the function that cannot be replaced in a criminal case. Judicial expert conclusion is one kind of the evidence in a criminal case. And it is the important foundation by that the people’s court to find the case’s fact, to cognizance the case’s nature and to give a proper punishment fits the crime.Criminal case judicial expert conclusion only have something to do with the science and technology itself, rather than with the character of the expertise organizations, ranks and titles of experts. A scientific expert conclusion would not change because of different experts, different places or different time to authenticate Criminal case judicial expertise is only of scientific nature rather than of authoritative nature. Criminal case judicial expertise should value and obey the science. The expertise made by the expertise organization at a lower level shouldn’t obey the expertise made by the expertise organization at a higher level, and minority shouldn’t submit to the majorty. We should make our choice from the many different expert conclusions on the basis of examing and judging the legitimate and scientific of each conclusion by the way to examin the evidences. We shouldn’t choose those which are drawn by so-called authoritative units simply. According to the relationship between the expert conclusions and other evidences, the expert conclusions drawn through legal procedure have the same legal effect with other evidences in form. First all of them have to be examined and verified and then be considered an verdict basis. They do not have the status of priority or obiligatory to adopt first and certainly.We can remedy our shortcoming with others good points. The experience on making laws for criminal legal expertise abroad should be used as reference to rebuild the system on criminal legal expertise by our country. In the world today, the difference on the system of criminal legal expertise is decided by the character of the judicial procedure of civil law system and common law system. Minewhile there are disparities on the system of criminal legal expertise between the two law systems, they have made detailed provisions concerning the matters of the system and procedure for the administration and division of the legal expertise orgazization, the right to start and decide the legal expertise, the qualifications for the experts, the rules serving as a witness at court for the expert, the legal effect of the expertise conculusions. There is a very important meaning on perfecting the system of our country’s criminal case judicial expertise by means of comparing the advantage and low quality between the two kinds of law systems.Lots of deficiency and vacancy still exist in China’s criminal case expertise. The laws on criminal case expertise have been made sluggishly. The organizations of expertise set up layer upon layer, and they are tarring on in a mess. It is lack of a scientific and resaonble system of the experts. And it is lack of provisions on the legal expertise procedure. For a long time past, the organizations of expertise regard it as the ultimate aim to issue an expert conclusion,and the experts served as a witness at court rarely. Because the expert doesn’t serve as a witness at court, the judges adopt the expert conclusions at will. Concerning on our today’s system of lawsuit, the society’s economy and the background of civilization, we should base ourselves upon our national conditions to rebuild our national criminal case legal expertise on fields the following: establishing scientific, neutral and just expertise’s organizations; carrying on the countrywide and unified examination for the qualifcations of the experts separately according to the different expertise kinds; strengthening the administration of the experts by making laws, stipulating the experts’s right and duty, building up the system of investigating and affixing the responsibility and conforming the expertise procedure to the standsrd.更多还原