论我国证据规则的改革方向与相关证据制度构建的几点设想

完善与证据规则相关证据制度,一是实行对使用科学技术手段侦破刑事案件的激励制度,以扩大科学证据在刑事侦查过程中的应用范围;二是实行“侦鉴分离”、“勘鉴分离”的证据收集、认定制度;三是实行完善“专家证人”制度。     

医疗纠纷诉讼证据问题与对策——对病历-鉴定-审判模式的反思

医疗纠纷诉讼证据包括民事诉讼法规定的七种证据。由于医疗纠纷诉讼的特殊性,我国司法实践已经形成了病历—鉴定—审判的审理模式。法官在案件审理过程中,存在案件事实认定的鉴定结论依赖性及法律责任认定的鉴定结论依赖性。然而,其不利因素是病历资料的客观真实性在现存制度下难以保障,双轨制的鉴定制度还很不完善。建议引入特定场所视听资料对病历真实性进行佐证,加强电子病历真实性的管理与监控,完善鉴定人出庭制度,推行专家辅助人制度及采取专家陪审员制度。     

A breaking-up of a pro-European consensus: Attitudes of Czech political parties towards the European integration (1998-2010)

This article represents a contribution to the debate over the attitudes of political parties to the European integration-one of the hot topics in contemporary political science. It explores the dynamics of attitudes of political parties in the Czech Republic to the EU and analyzes them in the context of parties primary ideologies. On the basis of the results of an expert survey the author interpretes the changes in the major features of “European” debate in the Czech Republic and offers a new classification schema of attitudes of political parties towards the EU, according to the preferences of economic and/or political dimension of European integration.     

Measuring party positions and issue salience from media coverage: Discussing and cross-validating new indicators

Recent studies have started to use media data to measure party positions and issue salience. The aim of this article is to compare and cross-validate this alternative approach with the more commonly used party manifestos, expert judgments and mass surveys. To this purpose, we present two methods to generate indicators of party positions and issue salience from media coverage: the core sentence approach and political claims analysis. Our cross-validation shows that with regard to party positions, indicators derived from the media converge with traditionally used measurements from party manifestos, mass surveys and expert judgments, but that salience indicators measure different underlying constructs. We conclude with a discussion of specific research questions for which media data offer potential advantages over more established methods.     

Forecasting proportional representation elections from non-representative expectation surveys

This study tests non-representative expectation surveys as a method for forecasting elections. For dichotomous forecasts of the 2013 German election (e.g., who will be chancellor, which parties will enter parliament), two non-representative citizen samples performed equally well than a benchmark group of experts. For vote-share forecasts, the sample of more knowledgeable and interested citizens performed similar to experts and quantitative models, and outperformed the less informed citizens. Furthermore, both citizen samples outperformed prediction markets but provided less accurate forecasts than representative polls. The results suggest that non-representative surveys can provide a useful low-cost forecasting method, in particular for small-scale elections, where it may not be feasible or cost-effective to use established methods such as representative polls or prediction markets.     

专家证人模式与司法鉴定模式之比较

专家证人模式与司法鉴定模式是英美法系和大陆法系在解决专门性事实问题上两种不同的模式。两者在法律文化基础、有关专家的诉讼地位和资格、程序启动、质证、证据能力和证明力上都有很大的不同。然而,由于两种模式都存在其固有的缺陷,近年来各国都在进行相应的改革,出现了相互融合和借鉴的趋势。     

论面向社会服务的法医临床学鉴定结论的审查

各级临床医院建立面向社会服务的法医临床学鉴定机构是司法鉴定改革的一项重要举措,人身伤害的法医临床学鉴定涉及医学的各个学科,鉴定內容十分广泛,涉及的问题十分复杂,得出的鉴定结论也受多种因素的影响。所以,鉴定结论作为重要的诉讼证据,必须经过严格审查,经查证属实,才能作为定案的证据。     

论科学证据的审查判断和采信——以鉴定结论为视角

随着科技的发展，事实审理者在诉讼中使用包括鉴定结论在内的科学证据变得日益必要和普遍。但我国对科学证据的审查判断和采信还存在许多问题。因此加强此方面的研究意义重大。     

法学视角下过度医疗行为的认定

《侵权责任法》在法律的层面对过度检查行为做出了禁止性规定，但是司法实践中过度医疗行为的认定仍旧是一个难题。本文在对过度医疗概念进行法律界定的基础上，提出了过度医疗的认定标准，并结合新修改的《民事诉讼法》，探讨了过度医疗认定中的鉴定制度、专家辅助人制度等问题。     

论非典型鉴定意见的法律效力——“鉴定咨询意见”、“鉴定检验报告”、“技术证据审核意见”的证据能力问题亟需依法统一认识

“两种意见”和“两种检验报告”的性质和作用问题，在司法鉴定和司法活动中是经常引起争议的理论和实践问题。本文针对当前的争议．对每个问题提出了自己的观点和解决争议的主张。认为“鉴定专家咨询委员会”出具的“鉴定咨询意见”不是鉴定意见．不能作为定案的根据，只能作为侦查、审查起诉、审判的参考。并论证了其中的多方面原因;主张“鉴定检验报告”应当区分法定与法外两种性质，分别属于法定鉴定意见证据和仅供审判部门参考的非法定证据．并提出了对两种不同性质“检验报告”的使用评断原则;认为人民检察院、人民法院的“科技证据审核活动”．属于司法机关对鉴定意见的内部咨询活动，审查的范围仅限于四个方面．技审人员和机构无权对司法鉴定意见进行否定或肯定．只能对四方面的问题提出“审查建议”,“技术审查意见”只能作为检察、审判机关审查起诉和审判的内部参考．不能栽入起诉书和裁判文书。