论物证理化检验中的种属认定和同一认定

传统的观点认为物证理化检验只能进行种属认定。物证理化检验中的种属认定和同一认定仅仅是依据了不同层次的物证反映体所导致的来源(或个体)同一认定范围上的区别。随着科学技术的发展和人类认识世界能力的不断加强,物证理化检验一定可以实现从种属认定向同一认定的转化。必须坚持物证检验与案件性质和侦查过程相结合的方法,以促使物证理化检验中的种属认定转变为事实上的同一认定。     

试论对文件检验结论的证据分类

文件检验结论在司法实践中具有重要的作用，通常将其归入鉴定结论类诉讼证据。然而，文件检验结论的具体表现形式有多种，其证明力也各不相同，因而不能笼统地对其作证据种类划分，应依据不同类型的文件检验结论证明案情和解决诉讼问题的不同情形进行具体分类。     

医疗事故技术鉴定专家出庭质证问题阐释

医疗事故技术鉴定专家出庭接受质证是法院审查、认定鉴定结论以及克服医疗事故技术鉴定自身中立性不足和程序不完善等问题的必然要求。鉴定专家出庭接受质证程序要体现交叉询问原则,同时,要引入专家辅助人、专家陪审员制度以构建均衡合理的质证主体结构。质证的内容应该围绕鉴定专家资格．鉴定结论的相关性、科学性、事实材料充分性、证明过程符合逻辑性等来展开。     

论康德的普世伦理思想及其现实可能

本系统地考察与梳理了康德的普世伦理思想之主要范畴。认为，以先验理性和纯粹形式的原则建构起来的这一普世伦理体系有其天生的缺陷，即：实施原则之纯粹理性化不能保证其绝对的道德化，理性的虚拟物无法在现实中找到它的切入点，以满足现实生活对它的期望。其根源在于：以理性作为人的本质属性，忽视了人性的丰富内涵，把道德主体约化为单纯的理性主体。     

检法分歧现象的审视与思考

检法分歧是司法实践中的客观现象,观察这一现象可以发现问题、探寻规律。本文以实证考察为出发点,以点代面,全面展示了司法实践中的这一现象,深入剖析其中的原因,探寻规律,并在此基础上进行了理性反思和对策研究。     

The Utility of Expanded Conclusion Scales During Latent Print Examinations

During fingerprint comparisons, a latent print examiner visually compares two impressions to determine whether or not they originated from the same source. They consider the amount of perceived detail in agreement or disagreement and accumulate evidence toward same source and different sources propositions. This evidence is then mapped to one of three conclusions: Identification, Inconclusive, or Exclusion. A limitation of this 3-conclusion scale is it can lose information when translating the conclusion from the internal strength-of-evidence value to one of only three possible conclusions. An alternative scale with two additional values, support for different sources and support for common sources, has been proposed by the Friction Ridge Subcommittee of OSAC. The expanded scale could lead to more investigative leads but could produce complex trade-offs in both correct and erroneous identifications. The aim of the present study was to determine the consequences of a shift to expanded conclusion scales in latent print comparisons. Latent print examiners each completed 60 comparisons using one of the two scales, and the resulting data were modeled using signal detection theory to measure whether the expanded scale changed the threshold for an “Identification” conclusion. When using the expanded scale, examiners became more risk-averse when making “Identification” decisions and tended to transition both the weaker Identification and stronger Inconclusive responses to the “Support for Common Source” statement. The results demonstrate the utility of an expanded conclusion scale and also provide guidance for the adoption of these or similar scales.     

试论自招危险之紧急避险

紧急避险在各国刑法中一般都被规定是正当化事由之一。但对自招危险能否进行紧急避险，各国的规定和学界的观点却不一致。笔者以为，从紧急避险的刑法机理出发，在自招危险的情况下，行为人事实上对该危险承担着不同程度的忍受义务。围绕这一忍受义务，结合其他因素，可对自招危险之紧急避险问题区别不同情况予以处理，并据此提出了几点结论。     

Calibrating the perceived strength of evidence of forensic testimony statements

Pattern comparison disciplines use categorical statements to express conclusions. We measured the strength of evidence for six different scales as perceived by members of the general public and fingerprint examiners. The statements came from different types of scales, and included categorical conclusions, likelihoods, strength of support statements, and random match probabilities. We used an online interface that required participants to first correctly sort the statements in a given conclusion scale, and then place each statement on a single evidence axis that ranged from most support imaginable for same source to most support imaginable for different sources. We analyzed the data using both the raw values and a Thurstone–Mosteller model based on ordinal values. We found systematic differences between examiners and members of the general public, such that examiners distinguished between Identification and Extremely Strong Support for Common Source, while members of the general public did not. Statements that included numerical values tended to be placed lower than categorical conclusions, and members of the general public tended to place the highest categorical conclusion in each scale at the very top of the evidence axis. The results suggest that laypersons can distinguish between statements meant to represent moderate vs strong evidence, but tend to place categorical conclusions above statements that involve numerical values.     

“Cannot Decide”: The Fine Line Between Appropriate Inconclusive Determinations Versus Unjustifiably Deciding Not To Decide

Inconclusive decisions, deciding not to decide, are decisions. We present a cognitive model which takes into account that decisions are an outcome of interactions and intersections between the actual data and human cognition. Using this model it is suggested under which circumstances inconclusive decisions are justified and even warranted (reflecting proper caution and meta‐cognitive abilities in recognizing limited abilities), and, conversely, under what circumstances inconclusive decisions are unjustifiable and should not be permitted. The model further explores the limitations and problems in using categorical decision‐making when the data are actually a continuum. Solutions are suggested within the forensic fingerprinting domain, but they can be applied to other forensic domains, and, with modifications, may also be applied to other expert domains.