本文選題：同一　切入點(diǎn)：認(rèn)定　出處：《西南政法大學(xué)》2006年碩士論文　論文類型：學(xué)位論文

【摘要】：同一認(rèn)定鑒定結(jié)論，，屬我國(guó)訴訟法中之法定證據(jù)。作為一個(gè)常識(shí)，我們知道任何證據(jù)唯有查證屬實(shí)，才能作為定案之根據(jù)。而且隨著訴訟的民主、公開(kāi)、公正程度的增強(qiáng)，當(dāng)事人程序權(quán)利保障的日益高漲，法庭審判直接、言辭原則的要求，對(duì)包括鑒定結(jié)論在內(nèi)的證據(jù)審查、判斷愈來(lái)愈提出了“苛刻”要求。鑒定人出庭已成了時(shí)代的呼聲，故而鑒定人如何向法官與當(dāng)事人證明作出的鑒定結(jié)論是真實(shí)可靠的，使法官如何采信鑒定結(jié)論，當(dāng)事人如何相信鑒定結(jié)論是不可推卸之責(zé)。 本文主要研究同一認(rèn)定鑒定結(jié)論標(biāo)準(zhǔn)問(wèn)題，關(guān)鍵是探討能否制定標(biāo)準(zhǔn)、如何制定標(biāo)準(zhǔn)等一系列認(rèn)識(shí)論。 文章分成四個(gè)部分闡述，大約三萬(wàn)余字： 第一部分有關(guān)同一認(rèn)定鑒定結(jié)論真實(shí)性與真實(shí)性之證明。開(kāi)宗明義的指出同一認(rèn)定的目標(biāo)——求真。同一認(rèn)定結(jié)論真實(shí)性的含義，同一認(rèn)定中真與真的認(rèn)識(shí)之區(qū)分及其區(qū)分同一認(rèn)定真實(shí)性與真實(shí)性證明的意義。 第二部研究同一認(rèn)定鑒定結(jié)論之技術(shù)標(biāo)準(zhǔn)。同一認(rèn)定鑒定結(jié)論標(biāo)準(zhǔn)的含義應(yīng)該界定為規(guī)范、準(zhǔn)則，“即鑒定結(jié)論可靠性的必備要素”。同時(shí)論述了同一認(rèn)定中鑒定人的自由裁量權(quán)，同一認(rèn)定鑒定結(jié)論真實(shí)性的技術(shù)標(biāo)準(zhǔn)分為真實(shí)性的實(shí)質(zhì)標(biāo)準(zhǔn)與真實(shí)性的形式標(biāo)準(zhǔn)等問(wèn)題。 第三部分論述同一認(rèn)定鑒定結(jié)論的“法律真實(shí)”標(biāo)準(zhǔn)�！胺烧鎸�(shí)”標(biāo)準(zhǔn)含義：一是科學(xué)、經(jīng)驗(yàn)與邏輯的可采性標(biāo)準(zhǔn)——真實(shí)性；二是法律上的可采納性標(biāo)準(zhǔn)——證明資格。鑒定結(jié)論真實(shí)的證明資格標(biāo)準(zhǔn)是其關(guān)聯(lián)性與合法性標(biāo)準(zhǔn)。證明資格標(biāo)準(zhǔn)不會(huì)導(dǎo)致符合法律的鑒定結(jié)論就是真實(shí)的問(wèn)題，還需要鑒定結(jié)論證明真實(shí)標(biāo)準(zhǔn)。同一認(rèn)定鑒定結(jié)論真實(shí)性標(biāo)準(zhǔn)包含兩個(gè)方面：真實(shí)性證明標(biāo)準(zhǔn)的內(nèi)在方面；真實(shí)性證明標(biāo)準(zhǔn)的外在方面，最終法官采納同一認(rèn)定鑒定結(jié)論“法律真實(shí)”標(biāo)準(zhǔn)——排除一切合理懷疑。 第四部分：確立鑒定結(jié)論真實(shí)標(biāo)準(zhǔn)的意義。法官能夠正確的采納同一認(rèn)定鑒定結(jié)論；鑒定結(jié)論真實(shí)標(biāo)準(zhǔn)的設(shè)定對(duì)鑒定人有監(jiān)督、制約作用；避免當(dāng)事人對(duì)鑒定結(jié)論一些無(wú)謂的爭(zhēng)論。 一言以蔽之，筆者在本文的設(shè)想是：一方面是保證鑒定人自己作出正確的結(jié)論，同時(shí)法官對(duì)訴訟中提交的鑒定結(jié)論進(jìn)行合法性與真實(shí)性的審查，這即是同一認(rèn)定鑒定結(jié)論標(biāo)準(zhǔn)的制定；另一方面，鑒定結(jié)論真實(shí)性標(biāo)準(zhǔn)之
[Abstract]:As a matter of common sense, we know that any evidence can be used as the basis of a final decision only if it is verified. Moreover, with the increase of democracy, openness and fairness in the proceedings, With the increasing protection of the procedural rights of the parties, the direct trial in the court, the requirement of the principle of words, the examination of evidence, including the conclusion of appraisal, and the judgment increasingly put forward "harsh" requirements. It has become a call of the times for the expert to appear in court. Therefore, how to prove to the judge and the parties that the appraisal conclusion made by the expert judge is true and reliable, how to make the judge adopt the appraisal conclusion and how the party believe that the appraisal conclusion is the responsibility cannot be shirked. This paper mainly studies the standard of the same identification and appraisal conclusion, and the key is to discuss whether the standard can be formulated and how to make the standard, and a series of epistemology. The article is divided into four parts, about 30,000 words:. The first part is about the proof of authenticity and truthfulness of the same cognizant appraisal conclusion. At the beginning, the author points out clearly the objective of the same cognizance-seeking truth. The meaning of the authenticity of the same cognizant conclusion, The distinction between the truth and the truth in the same cognizance and the significance of the authenticity of the same cognizance. The second part studies the technical standard of the same identification conclusion. The meaning of the same identification conclusion standard should be defined as norm, criterion, "that is, the essential element of the reliability of the appraisal conclusion". At the same time, it discusses the discretion of the expert in the same cognizance. The technical standard of the authenticity of the same identification conclusion is divided into the substantive standard and the formal standard of authenticity. The third part discusses the standard of "legal truth" of the same identification and appraisal conclusion. The meaning of "legal truth" standard is as follows: first, the admissibility standard of science, experience and logic-authenticity; The other is the legal admissibility standard-certification qualification. The true qualification standard of the appraisal conclusion is its relevance and legitimacy standard. The certification qualification standard will not lead to the problem that the appraisal conclusion that conforms to the law is true. The standard of authenticity of the same identification and appraisal conclusion includes two aspects: the internal aspect of the standard of authenticity proof and the external aspect of the standard of authenticity proof. In the end, the judge accepted the criterion of "legal truth" of the same conclusion-to remove all reasonable doubts. Part 4th: the significance of establishing the true standard of the appraisal conclusion. The judge can adopt the same conclusion correctly; the setting of the true standard of the appraisal conclusion has the supervision and restriction function to the expert; Avoid unnecessary arguments about the conclusion of the appraisal. In a word, the author's assumption in this paper is: on the one hand, to ensure that the appraiser himself makes the correct conclusion, and at the same time, the judge examines the legality and authenticity of the conclusions submitted in the proceedings. This is the establishment of the standard of the same identification and appraisal conclusion, on the other hand, the authenticity standard of the appraisal conclusion.
【學(xué)位授予單位】：西南政法大學(xué)
【學(xué)位級(jí)別】：碩士
【學(xué)位授予年份】：2006
【分類號(hào)】：D918.9;D915.13

【參考文獻(xiàn)】

相關(guān)期刊論文 前1條

1 張繼成 ,楊宗輝;對(duì)“法律真實(shí)”證明標(biāo)準(zhǔn)的質(zhì)疑[J];法學(xué)研究;2002年04期

本文編號(hào)：1574127