本文選題：法理學(xué) + 公安機(jī)關(guān)��； 參考：《哈爾濱商業(yè)大學(xué)》2016年碩士論文

【摘要】：公安機(jī)關(guān)的司法鑒定作為一項(xiàng)證明活動(dòng),其產(chǎn)生的鑒定意見(jiàn)或鑒定結(jié)論能夠直接為訴訟裁判提供證據(jù),影響裁判的質(zhì)量,甚至在某些情況下對(duì)整個(gè)案件的公正審判起到了決定性的作用。但不論是在理論研究領(lǐng)域,還是在實(shí)際運(yùn)行中的實(shí)踐領(lǐng)域,關(guān)于公安機(jī)關(guān)司法鑒定和公安機(jī)關(guān)司法鑒定制度的爭(zhēng)議和問(wèn)題始終存在。這些問(wèn)題不僅阻礙了公安機(jī)關(guān)司法鑒定制度的發(fā)展,最終也影響了司法公正的實(shí)現(xiàn)和司法改革的進(jìn)程。因此,從研究公安機(jī)關(guān)司法鑒定的法理學(xué)基礎(chǔ)理論的本源性問(wèn)題出發(fā),探求解決現(xiàn)實(shí)問(wèn)題的辦法,探索一條符合中國(guó)實(shí)際國(guó)情的改革和創(chuàng)新之路,是擺在當(dāng)今公安機(jī)關(guān)司法鑒定制度改革面前一個(gè)迫切而又現(xiàn)實(shí)的要求。長(zhǎng)久以來(lái),對(duì)于我國(guó)司法鑒定制度進(jìn)行理論研究和實(shí)證改革探討的學(xué)者頗多,逐漸形成了統(tǒng)一的系統(tǒng)化的研究成果。但對(duì)于公安機(jī)關(guān)司法鑒定制度這一特殊研究對(duì)象,國(guó)內(nèi)外的學(xué)者卻僅在“公安司法鑒定與刑事科學(xué)鑒定的異同”、“公安機(jī)關(guān)是否存在‘自偵自鑒’問(wèn)題”、“公安機(jī)關(guān)內(nèi)部是否應(yīng)設(shè)立司法鑒定機(jī)構(gòu)”等表面的現(xiàn)象問(wèn)題上進(jìn)行爭(zhēng)論,卻忽視對(duì)公安機(jī)關(guān)司法鑒定的理論本質(zhì)問(wèn)題進(jìn)行分析,這也是造成學(xué)理不清、爭(zhēng)議不停的重要原因。分析公安機(jī)關(guān)司法鑒定的法理學(xué)價(jià)值,探討在效率、正義、秩序、民主、理性價(jià)值取向下公安機(jī)關(guān)司法鑒定的應(yīng)然狀態(tài),不僅是開(kāi)展其他理論、實(shí)證研究的基礎(chǔ),更為構(gòu)建理想公安司法鑒定制度提供指導(dǎo)依據(jù)。同時(shí),通過(guò)實(shí)證調(diào)查研究,分析現(xiàn)行公安司法鑒定制度的現(xiàn)狀,從鑒定人、鑒定機(jī)構(gòu)、鑒定流程、鑒定監(jiān)督等方面對(duì)其內(nèi)部存在的問(wèn)題進(jìn)行深刻剖析。同時(shí)通過(guò)對(duì)國(guó)外警察機(jī)構(gòu)內(nèi)部設(shè)置的司法鑒定機(jī)構(gòu)體制和運(yùn)行制度進(jìn)行比較研究和對(duì)本國(guó)改革試點(diǎn)省份的先進(jìn)經(jīng)驗(yàn)分析后,我們可以得到指導(dǎo)現(xiàn)實(shí)改革的成功范例和三條指導(dǎo)性原則�；诖�,提出了推進(jìn)專門(mén)立法、加強(qiáng)公安機(jī)關(guān)司法鑒定機(jī)構(gòu)的去行政化、完善公安機(jī)關(guān)司法鑒定的程序控制和管理制度等解決問(wèn)題的辦法,辯證才能施治,以期拋磚引玉,得到大家的共鳴和認(rèn)可。
[Abstract]:The judicial identification of public security organs as a proof activity, its appraisal opinion or conclusion can directly provide evidence for the judge of the lawsuit and affect the quality of the judge. Even in some cases a fair trial of the whole case played a decisive role. However, whether in the field of theoretical research or in the practical field of practice, there are always disputes and problems concerning the judicial identification of public security organs and the system of judicial identification of public security organs. These problems not only hinder the development of the judicial identification system of public security organs, but also affect the realization of judicial justice and the process of judicial reform. Therefore, starting from the study of the origin of the basic theory of jurisprudence in the judicial expertise of public security organs, we should explore the solutions to the practical problems and explore a road of reform and innovation that conforms to China's actual national conditions. It is an urgent and realistic requirement for the reform of the judicial appraisal system of the public security organs. For a long time, many scholars have made theoretical research and empirical reform on the system of judicial expertise in China, and gradually formed a unified systematic research results. However, for the special research object of the system of judicial identification of public security organs, scholars at home and abroad are only in "similarities and differences between judicial identification of public security and criminal scientific identification" and "whether there is a problem of 'self-detection and self-identification' in public security organs". It is an important reason that the theoretical essence of judicial expertise of public security organs is analyzed, which is also an important reason for the confusion of academic theory and the non-stop controversy of the phenomenon of "whether or not to set up judicial expertise in public security organs" and other superficial phenomena, but neglects the analysis of the theoretical essence of judicial expertise in public security organs. To analyze the juristic value of judicial expertise of public security organs, to explore the necessary state of judicial expertise of public security organs under the value orientation of efficiency, justice, order, democracy and rationality is not only the basis of carrying out other theories and empirical studies. More ideal public security judicial identification system to provide guidance basis. At the same time, through the empirical investigation and research, this paper analyzes the present situation of the current public security judicial identification system, and deeply analyzes its internal problems from the aspects of the appraiser, the appraisal organization, the appraisal process, the appraisal supervision and so on. At the same time, through a comparative study of the system and operation system of judicial expertise institutions set up within foreign police agencies and an analysis of the advanced experience of the pilot provinces in China's reform, We can get successful examples and three guiding principles to guide real reform. Based on this, this paper puts forward some solutions to solve the problems, such as promoting special legislation, strengthening the deadministration of public security organs' judicial expertise institutions, perfecting the procedural control and management system of public security organs' judicial expertise, and so on, so that they can be dealt with dialectically, with a view to throwing bricks at the ground, To get everyone's resonance and recognition.
【學(xué)位授予單位】：哈爾濱商業(yè)大學(xué)
【學(xué)位級(jí)別】：碩士
【學(xué)位授予年份】：2016
【分類號(hào)】：D918.9

【參考文獻(xiàn)】

相關(guān)期刊論文 前9條

1 鄭瑞平;;試論刑事審前程序中司法告知的完善——以向被害人告知鑒定意見(jiàn)與不批捕理由為例[J];法制博覽;2016年05期

2 蘇青;;鑒定意見(jiàn)概念之比較與界定[J];法律科學(xué)(西北政法大學(xué)學(xué)報(bào));2016年01期

3 石東洋;劉新秀;高健美;;論刑事偵查鑒定權(quán)配置改革的對(duì)策[J];江西警察學(xué)院學(xué)報(bào);2015年01期

4 王瑞恒;肖晶;;我國(guó)司法鑒定地方立法研究[J];遼寧師范大學(xué)學(xué)報(bào)(社會(huì)科學(xué)版);2015年01期

5 霍憲丹;;關(guān)于進(jìn)一步健全完善司法鑒定制度的思考[J];中國(guó)司法鑒定;2014年01期

6 徐旭;;論偵查鑒定活動(dòng)的“功利性”[J];湖北警官學(xué)院學(xué)報(bào);2013年06期

7 袁周斌;;預(yù)防偵查錯(cuò)誤視角下公安刑事鑒定制度的反思與完善[J];中國(guó)司法鑒定;2013年03期

8 陳衛(wèi)東;柴煜峰;;刑事證據(jù)制度修改的亮點(diǎn)與難點(diǎn)[J];證據(jù)科學(xué);2012年02期

9 霍憲丹;郭華;;建設(shè)中國(guó)特色司法鑒定制度的理性思考[J];中國(guó)司法鑒定;2011年01期

，

本文編號(hào)：1936175