Study of the correlation between psychiatric and psychological diagnoses in sample offenders

This study deals with the frequency with which expert psychiatrists and psychologists make structural or nosographic diagnoses within the context of expert assessment.Thus, the rates of concordance between psychiatrists and psychologists in both types of diagnoses will be assessed.To do so, the level of inter-observer agreement on diagnoses between 1990 and 2003 was studied retrospectively in France through psychiatric and psychological assessments of 505 male offenders. The assessment of the correlation rates was carried out using the Kappa coefficient.The results show a range of 0.55 to 0.71 in inter-observer (psychiatrists vs psychologists) agreement for structural diagnoses, and 0.51 to 0.89 for nosographic diagnoses.In addition, a marked correlation between psychiatrists and psychologists may be noted regarding abstention in both structural (k = 66) and nosographic (k = 73) diagnoses. In fact, recommendations are made for improvement in the consistency of offender assessment in the psycho-legal French context.     

摇晃婴儿综合征:科学(与非科学)专家的一场真实交战

本文从科学和法律层面介绍了摇晃婴儿综合征的有关内容,就关于摇晃婴儿综合征的科学和非科学专家证言的可采性进行了评价,称在科学和非科学专家之间正在发生一场真实的交战。     

摇晃婴儿综合征:科学(与非科学)专家的一场真实交战

本文从科学和法律层面介绍了摇晃婴儿综合征的有关内容,就关于摇晃婴儿综合征的科学和非科学专家证言的可采性进行了评价,称在科学和非科学专家之间正在发生一场真实的交战.     

高校司法鉴定人及其出庭问题研究

司法鉴定人的主体地位决定其是改善和健全现阶段司法鉴定制度的根本途径和关键环节。在当前司法实践中鉴定人出庭难、出庭率低等已成为亟待解决的弊病。高校司法鉴定人作为鉴定人的重要组成部分。在保障当事人合法权益、推进鉴定理论化进程等方面发挥着重要作用。高校司法鉴定人以其身份之特殊性在当今司法鉴定领域承栽着特殊的意义,对其出庭等相关问题的妥善解决必将打开完善我国司法鉴定人出庭制度的关键一环。     

论司法鉴定人出庭作证

我国的三大诉讼法和仲裁法皆把司法鉴定结论作为法定证据,鉴定人是鉴定结论产生的主体,必然受到诉讼制度和证据制度的规范,而具有一定的法律地位和责任。在我国当前的诉讼模式下,诉讼证据依靠两个屏障加以过滤:其一,当事人、鉴定人出庭质证参与诉讼;其二,由法官的采证、法官的内心确信而形成。所以鉴定人出庭出具作为证据的司法鉴定结论,接受当事人的质询和法官的询问,这是鉴定程序的最后阶段,也是鉴定结论能否升华为诉讼证据的关键所在,直接影响法庭对鉴定结论的采信。鉴于此,鉴定人出庭作证是十分必要和必须进行规范。当前,鉴定人出庭甚少,该制度需要进行调整和完善。     

Communicating forensic scientific expertise: An analysis of expert reports and corresponding testimony in Tasmanian courts

Forensic criminology examines the use of forensic science in society. Justice can be hampered, for example, if the communication of forensic scientific findings is unclear or misleading, even if unintentionally. Although various recommendations guide the communication of forensic science, it is unclear whether they are reflected in practice. This study explored the communication of forensic biology in 10 cases of major crimes against the person heard in the Tasmanian Supreme Court, where the standard practice is to issue brief summary reports in the first instance. The content of expert reports and corresponding testimony was analysed to determine its adherence to recommendations outlined in standards, practice notes, and research. While reports were found to be very brief, testimony elaborated on all major elements. Mostly elicited by the prosecution, some elements were volunteered by expert witnesses, or raised by defence. Overall, expert evidence in courts—but not reports (due to the use of brief summary reports)—largely adhered to recommendations. Further research is needed to determine the prevalence and effectiveness of alternative approaches to communication that were identified in certain cases.     

法医精神病鉴定人出庭作证探讨

随着庭审制度的改革和证据规则的不断完善,鉴定人对出庭作证的认识重点应从＂为什么要出庭＂的理论探讨向＂怎样出庭＂的实务操作转移。法医精神病鉴定人由于专业的特殊性,更需要了解出庭作证时可能面临的困境,正确把握自身的诉讼地位。鉴定人在出庭前应从鉴定资料、与有关方面的沟通等环节上进行充分的准备,出庭时应注意识别各类＂陷阱＂问题,慎用＂是＂、＂不是＂的简单回答,审时度势,适当运用技巧,力争在被动的地位上获得主动的优势。     

论鉴定人的法律地位及其责任机制

鉴定人的法律责任是司法鉴定制度的一个重要的组成部分。从比较法角度分析在英美法国家和大陆法国家鉴定人法律地位的两种基本样式及其特征 ,比较不同程序结构下鉴定人承担的法律义务和相应责任的性质及内容 ,从而对我国鉴定人责任机制进行宏观建构。     

司法精神病鉴定制度研究

我国的司法精神病鉴定制度存在着很多的问题,因此改革势在必行。改革我国的司法精神病鉴定制度,重点应统一名称、统一鉴定机构以及赋予当事人一定的启动司法精神病鉴定的权利。     

失范鉴定人将面临的三份监管“黑名单”

鉴定意见是重要的诉讼证据,是法官发现事实真相的得力助手,但失范鉴定意见则起着相反的作用。近期全国人大常委会、最高人民法院、国家市场监督管理总局分别发文,对鉴定主体展开信用管理,对于存在失信失范行为的鉴定主体,纳入黑名单进行管理,需引起鉴定机构和鉴定人的重视。