鉴定意见在侦查中的作用——以“8.17”特大杀人案为例

文章对＂8.17＂特大杀人案的技术工作进行回顾性研究,总结其中的成功经验,对存在的问题进行反思分析,进而阐述鉴定意见在侦查工作中的作用。     

签名笔迹鉴定方法与鉴定意见标准化探究

签名笔迹是笔迹的一种特殊类型,具有特殊的分类,因而签名笔迹鉴定案件也具有一定的特殊性。这些决定了签名笔迹案件的鉴定具有特定的方法与要点。除了签名笔迹案件的鉴定方法外,签名笔迹鉴定意见的标准化也是值得探究的一个方面。     

The quality of written expert testimony in alleged child sexual abuse: An empirical study

Abstract

The purpose of this study was to empirically evaluate written expert testimonies in cases of suspected child sexual abuse in Sweden. A total of 121 expert testimonies were rated with an instrument developed for the study, the SQX-12 (Gumpert et al., 2001) which is a 12-item checklist aimed to reflect consensus-established concepts of quality. Reports from different professional groups were compared, as were reports produced before and after the 1991 publication of national guidelines. The results suggested that the reports produced by professionals using statement analysis generally were of higher quality than reports written by professionals from child- and adolescent psychiatry. There was a slight increase in report quality, as measured by the SQX total score, over the studied years. However, it is concluded that the overall quality of written expert testimony on child credibility still does not reach the recommended level in Sweden.     

专家辅助人制度的问题与改革——基于我国侦查实践的研究

新《刑事诉讼法》设立的专家辅助人制度,将其适用范围限定在了庭审阶段。但根据我国目前的司法实践来看,刑事诉讼中的鉴定争议大都集中于初查或侦查阶段,因此部分侦查机关已将该制度应用于侦查阶段的鉴定程序中,并取得了较好的效果。由此看来,仅仅在庭审阶段建立专家辅助人,必然存在较多局限,而侦查阶段的鉴定程序建立专家辅助人制度势必具有必要性与可行性。因此,立法应根据诉讼实践,对目前的专家辅助人制度进行完善,以建立合理可行的侦查阶段专家辅助人制度。     

从比较法的视角论我国专家第三人责任制度

专家责任指专家在执业活动中给他人造成损害所应承担的民事责任,是社会专业分工精细化到达一定程度的产物。而现代社会对专家责任关注的焦点发生了转变:其不仅仅是专家对委托人责任的问题,而是向第三人责任发展,即专家作为信息提供者导致与其无合同关系的第三人遭受损害时所应承担的民事责任。专家第三人责任涉及合同相对性、纯粹经济损失的侵权法救济以及社会公众利益和专家职业利益的平衡问题,实有深入研究之必要。以比较法为视角,通过对不同国家地区关于专家第三人责任制度的立法、司法、学说、判例加以比较,分析其利弊得失,从而对我国专家第三人责任制度的建构提出若干建议。     

非法鉴定意见排除规则研究

我国非法鉴定意见排除规则的定义是指在诉讼过程中,由于鉴定的前、中、后程序出现严重违法或瑕疵,使得鉴定意见非法或者不合法,经过法官审查或合法当事人提出,使相应鉴定意见的证据能力或者证明力失效的规则。非法鉴定意见排除规则由鉴定前、中、后三个程序规则构成,对诉讼理念、制度、程序与社会等各个层面均有重要的意义。     

Do Citizens Judge Health Experts Through a Partisan Lens? Evidence from a Factorial Survey Experiment

Scholars have claimed that right-wing citizens are more skeptical about experts than left-wing citizens. This article, however, argues that depending on their party affiliation, citizens prefer certain kinds of expertise over others. I confronted Swiss adults (N = 2,465) with individual risk advice on either flu vaccination or colorectal cancer screening. The quote varied regarding the expert providing the advice (e.g., academic, administration, or corporation) and the degree of policy advocacy. The citizens then assessed the experts' credibility and their own behavioral intention (e.g., get a flu shot). Citizens across the political spectrum are more likely to positively evaluate experts who represent institutions aligned with their beliefs. Moreover, right-wing citizens are more skeptical about experts who advocate for specific policies than their left-wing counterparts. This study underscores the need for a better understanding of how partisanship affects expert perceptions to manage health policy problems and other science-based issues.     

The admissibility and persuasiveness of expert evidence

Parenting plan evaluators are expert witnesses who offer their opinion. Courts in common law jurisdictions generally do not accept evidence of an opinion as it is not considered to be reliable evidence from which to establish a fact. An exception to that general principle is expert opinion evidence. In short, an opinion from a person with specialized knowledge or expertise about the area in which they are an expert may be sufficiently reliable to form an evidentiary basis from which to make a finding of fact, provided the opinion meets certain criteria. These criteria will be discussed in this article, as well as what is relevant, reliable and persuasive evidence. The relevant legal principles will be examined in an historical and contemporary, theoretical and practical context. The authors reflect on their considerable experience as consumers of expert evidence and apply this to parenting plan evaluations, as well as considering future challenges in the field.