以审判为中心的庭审模式对法医出庭质证的挑战

以审判为中心的庭审模式是当今诉讼改革的主要方向,案件庭审实质化是诉讼改革的主要目标,在此背景下,法医鉴定人出庭质证将会实质化、常态化。为此,最高人民法院等部门出台了保障鉴定人出庭的相关规定、规则。法医鉴定意见质证实质化要求法医鉴定人在出庭时履行相关义务:尊重法庭、如实回答提问、释明鉴定意见。当前法医参加庭审质证中存在法医鉴定人出庭率低、鉴定意见的法律性质不明确、鉴定人出庭的具体要求不明确、与包括专家辅助人在内的其他专家证据形式的冲突等问题。为此,笔者向法医鉴定人提出三点建议:不断学习,提升专业技能;加强修炼,提高法律知识;注重实践,强化表达能力。     

Building sustainable free legal advisory systems: Experiences from the history of AI & law

The enthusiasm for artificial intelligence (AI) as a source of solutions to problems is not new. In law, from the early 1980s until at least the early 2000s, considerable work was done on developing ‘legal expert systems.’ As the DataLex project, we participated in those developments, through research and publications, commercial and non-commercial systems, and teaching students application development. This paper commences with a brief account of that work to situate our perspective.The main aim of this paper is an assessment of what might be of value from the experience of the DataLex Project to contemporary use of ‘AI and law’ by free legal advice services, who must necessarily work within funding and other constraints in developing and sustaining such systems. We draw fifteen conclusions from this experience, which we consider are relevant to development of systems for free legal advice services. The desired result, we argue, is the development of integrated legal decision-support systems, not ‘expert systems’ or ‘robot lawyers’. We compare our insights with the approach of the leading recent text in the field, and with a critical review of the field over twenty-five years. We conclude that the approach taken by the DataLex Project, and now applied to free legal advice services, remains consistent with leading work in field of AI and law.The paper concludes with brief suggestions of what are the most desirable improvements to tools and platforms to enable development of free legal advice systems. The objectives of free access to legal information services have much in common with those of free legal advice services. The information resources that free access to law providers (including LIIs) can provide will often be those that free legal advice services will need to use to develop and sustain free legal advisory systems. There is therefore strong potential for valuable collaborations between these two types of services providers.     

The Mythology of Human Rights

Abstract. A special legal status is accorded to human rights within Western liberal democracies: They enjoy a priority over other human goods and are not subjected to the majoritarian principle. The underlying assumption—the idea that there are some human values that deserve special protection—implies the need for both a normative and a conceptual justification. This paper claims that neither can be provided. The normative justification is needed to support the priority of human rights over other human goods and to rank and balance conflicting human rights, but it can't be provided because of the fact of pervasive value pluralism, the fact that human values are many, incompatible and incommensurable. The conceptual justification is needed to avoid arbitrariness in the interpretation of human rights at the adjudication stage. Such a justification is impossible, however, as the concept of human rights, and the concepts used to justify them and to solve their conflicts are “essentially contested concepts.” The paper concludes that, provided that the interpretation of human rights presupposes value judgements and political choices, the special legal status accorded to human rights is not justified.     

专家辅助人制度基本问题研究——以《刑事诉讼法》第192条规定为切入点

新《刑事诉讼法》第192条创设了专家辅助人制度,这是鉴定制度改革的一大亮点。但该条规定过于粗疏,缺乏可操作性,实践中需要对专家辅助人的诉讼地位、资格条件、中立客观义务、虚假陈述的法律责任、质证范畴以及申请出庭决定程序等基本问题进行研究,并细化完善该项初生制度。同时,应基于系统观念,推进相关配套制度建设,当下尤其是应继续深化司法鉴定制度改革、加快鉴定人及专家辅助人信息库建设以及制定规范化的刑事鉴定意见质证规则,惟此方能实现该制度的立法目的。     

The twilight zone between scientific certainty and legal sufficiency: should a jury determine the causation of schizophrenia?

In lawsuits involving complex scientific issues of causation, dispute resolution requires that a final decision be reached in each case, regardless of whether science is able to provide definitive answers to the questions of causation raised at trial. Proving causation before science has is a concept that scientists may find disconcerting and foreign to some of their basic assumptions. This paper explores the foregoing issues, discusses medical versus legal concepts of causation, outlines the legal tests for admissibility of novel scientific evidence (including Federal Rule of Evidence 702 and the Frye test of general acceptance by the relevant scientific community), and presents a toxic tort case in which expert psychiatric testimony addressed the issue of causation of schizophrenia. The paper articulates concerns about the "misleading aura of certainty" posed by scientific evidence and the burden of decision making that is cast upon the legal system in such scientific issue cases.     

The experimental psychologist in court

This special issue comprises articles by psychologists, legal scholars, and ethicists on the ethics of expert testimony by experimental psychologists. In it the major ethical questions facing the prospective expert witness are clarified, and alternative positions on these issues are defined and debated. Fundamentals of moral reasoning are discussed, and the realities of interaction with a judicial system that subjects the psychologist to a variety of pressures and limitations are made apparent. The aim is not to offer final answers to complex ethical questions, but rather to provide a framework within which the questions can be considered by the individual psychologist.The conference on ethics of expert testimony by experimental psychologists was supported by National Science Foundation grant No. ISP-8209940. We thank Rachelle Hollander of the Ethics and Values in Science and Technology Program, Joe Young of the Memory and Cognitive Processes Program, and Eric Juengst of the National Endowment for the Humanities for their help in bringing about the conference.     

The forensic expert witness--an issue of competency

Scientists submitting expert opinions within the legal system are expected to be knowledgeable in the forensic aspects of their particular science, as well as to be ethical and unbiased. Scientists are seldom able to decline a request to provide an expert opinion in their field, even when their forensic expertise is minimal. The competence of scientists providing expert opinions in forensic cases is reviewed here. Three examples of the perils of uninformed "expertise" in forensic biology, medicine and anthropology are presented.     

WTO争端解决机制中的专家决策与公众参与

专家决策在WTO争端解决机制中起着主导性作用.依照DsU的有关规定,专家组成员可以请求其他专家帮助他们评估某一WTO成员方的政策,以界定该成员方所采取的措施是否符合其所承担的自由贸易义务.然而,不论是专家的选任还是专家意见的征求,都有需要改进之处.WTO争端解决的法律化及民主化是公众参与的先决条件.实质上,公众参与的法律基础是透明度.公众参与作为一项手段,可以大大加强WTO争端解决机制的效力.     

The Logic of Time in Law and Legal Expert Systems*

Abstract. Research on an expert system regarding unemployment insurance law has pointed to the difficulties of explicitly representing temporal relations. The question has been addressed in the artificial intelligence literature with respect to planning systems and linguistic analysis. The approaches adopted do not appear to be directly transposable to legal discourse. The problem seems so far to have escaped notice amongst researchers attempting to develop legal expert systems. The paper explores in a preliminary way how lawyers use temporal concepts. It is submitted that “legal time” only partly overlaps with real time. A sketch of a formalization of temporal relations in law, following J. F. Allen's approach, is presented.     

Expert Testimony of the Battered Person Syndrome, Defendant Gender, and Sexual Orientation in a Case of Duress: Evaluating Legal Decisions

The current study examined the utility of expert testimony of the battered person syndrome (BPS) in a case of duress and the extent to which defendant gender, defendant sexual orientation, and participant gender influence mock jury decisions in a case of duress. Participants (N?=?413) read a scenario based on U.S. v. Dixon (2006) and answered questions assessing verdict, guilt, sentence length, duress legal elements, and attributes typically ascribed to victims of abuse. Results showed heterosexual female defendants were assigned the lowest sentences and met more of the legal elements of duress (i.e., were coerced, more likely to be believed, and purchased a gun to prevent harm) and attributes (i.e., experienced severe abuse, learned helplessness) compared to other defendants. When mock jurors received expert testimony, they provided lower rates of guilt and sentencing for defendants. Results also showed the inclusion of BPS expert testimony increased ratings for many of the legal elements of duress and attributes typically associated with intimate partner violence. In addition, results suggested that while heterosexual female defendants are more likely to be believed in a case of duress, expert testimony of BPS is helpful to all defendants. Limitations and future directions for research and practice are discussed.     

Legal Concepts in a Natural Language Based Expert System*

Abstract. A new approach to the formalization of concepts used in legal reasoning such as obligation and cause is presented. The formalization is based on the linguistic use of the concepts both in legal language and in ordinary language, and has been motivated by work on a legal expert system with a natural language interface. Particularly for the concept of obligation this yields quite different results from those obtained by the usual approach of deontic logic: So-called paradoxes are avoided, quantification over obligations becomes possible, no restriction to a “single-agent system” is required, and collisions of obligations can be formulated.     

Forensic medical expert evaluation in connection with civil actions of patients complaining of improper dental care

The authors discuss questions facing forensic medical experts in connection with civil "medical" actions. The questions are classified as common and private. Expert evaluations of correspondence of the scope and quality of dental care are offered as the base for analysis of these problems within the framework of civil legislation. The data evidence efficiency of forensic medical expert evaluations in civil legal procedure and the significance of forensic medical service in the solution of problems of quality and efficiency of medical (including dental) care of the population.     

Psychological Testimony and the <Emphasis Type="Italic">Daubert</Emphasis> Standard

In the legal system, mental health professionals are now a primary source for expert information. Because potentially every psychologist might be drawn into a legal situation, competency requires accommodation of the nexus between the legal system and professional ethics and standards. Three particular Supreme Court cases create a framework for testifying about psychological information. This article reviews those three cases, defines the commitment to evidence-based (scientific) testimony, and explains how psychological ethics and standards should be accommodated. It reviews the major issues that psychologists face in Daubert admissibility challenges. Finally, it makes pertinent recommendations to help avoid the pitfall in dealing with court.     

国人对民决团在英美法庭中的功能的误解

民决团仅仅负责事实审,决定事实问题;法官则负责法律审,决定法律问题。这个认识的错误在于：普通法中没有“事实审”、“法律审”的术语,这是国人杜撰出来的。普通法事实发展出来法律,法律是事实的积累。民决团事实上既决定法律又决定事实。它在美国,具有最高权力,大于总统、国会和最高法庭。另外民决团在美国7个州还决定量刑,在有死刑的州,还决定死刑。事实与法律的区分和混合,有助于法官将复杂问题交给民决团决定并在上诉中捍卫民决团的最高权力;也有助于法官对法律问题下命令、进行违宪性审查。总之,理解民决团的最高权力,是理解普通法的关键。     

The Theory of Legal Dynamics Reconsidered*

Abstract. The author criticizes Kelsen's distinction between static and dynamic systems of norms and his theory of legal dynamics. The author moreover presents the institutionalist conception of legal dynamics. Kelsen's concept of static systems is incompatible with normological scepticism: The deduction of rules from a basic principle depends on additional premises; even in static systems there is a kind of dynamics produced by actual facts. Kelsen's conception of legal dynamics is also incompatible with normological scepticism and with Kelsen's demand of purity of jurisprudence. In the institutionalist conception Iegal dynamics is rather conceived as an interplay of legal norms and facts. Empowering relations, the principle of co-validity, temporal limits of norms, derogation, legal validity and the basic norm are analysed accordingly. Appendices deal with Paulson's empowering theory of legal norm and Lippold's double-faced reconstruction of the legal order.     

论法律家与法学家的思维范式

法律家的思维范式表现为“独立型思维”、“保守型思维”、“崇法型思维”等 ,而法学家的思维范式则表现为“批判型思维”、“前瞻型思维”与“人权型思维”等。本文针对我国法律家职业群体培养过程中存在的问题 ,提出在法律教学中可增开案例分析课程、司法伦理课程与其他社会科学的课程。     

对『司法会计鉴定结论能否回答法律性问题』的思考

司法会计鉴定结论是法定证据之一.由于司法会计技术人员一般都具备较高的综合素质,司法会计鉴定与查帐报告和审计结论有质的区别,司法会计技术人员对案件过程有比较全面的了解,对案件性质有比较深刻的认识,因此,司法会计鉴定结论对法律问题不应当采取一概回避或一律排斥的态度.又由于司法会计技术人员不具备对案件定性的权力,司法鉴定在本质上是一种科学研究活动,决定了它只能有限制地回答部分与鉴定要求有关的法律问题.     

公安信访工作的困境及应对策略

伴随着公安法制建设的逐渐完善,长期积累的信访问题不断得以解决,但因有关信访方面专门立法的缺乏,致使公安信访工作仍面临着一定的困境。本文在重新审视现行公安信访制度与实际工作不相适应情形的基础上,对改进公安信访工作提出了建议,希望对促进公安信访问题的有效解决有所裨益。     

法律义务冲突初论

法律义务冲突概括的是这种情况:同一法律义务人同时承担两种或两种以上不相容(具体表现为两种或者两种以上的义务不能得到同时履行)的法律义务,履行其中一个法律义务,就必然要违反其他的法律义务进而可能承担责任的义务抵触状态。法律义务冲突具有法律性、客观性、冲突性和身分性等特征。同时,法律规则之间、法律规则与法律原则之间以及法律原则之间冲突的解决方法为解决法律义务冲突提供了可参考的途径。     

专家证据的价值与我国司法鉴定制度的修改

随着科学技术的飞速发展,专家证据在诉讼中发挥着越来越重要的作用。在英美法系国家,专家证据制度在专家证人资格规定上的广泛性和选任上的自由性,使其在适用上具有灵活性和实用性的特点,其详细而完备的专家证据可采性规则,更是司法经验的积累与法官智慧的结晶。英美法系国家的专家证据制度和大陆法系的鉴定制度,在近些年的改革中呈现出共同的趋向,如启动程序的多样化、过错责任的严格化和庭审对抗的强化,这为完善我国司法鉴定制度、准确适用新刑诉法中有关专家辅助人的规定以及充分发挥专家证据的作用开启了新的思路。面对我国司法鉴定中依然相当混乱的鉴定主体问题,构建鉴定人、专家顾问和专家辅助人三位一体的司法鉴定主体格局,或许是一条比较合理可行的出路。