Research On The Adoptive System Of The Criminal Expert Conclusion

Expert conclusion of evidence and litigation functions attribute has been widely recognized. The expert conclusion not only has the evidence value, but also has the functions of determinate other kinds of evidences. Therefore, whether review the conclusion scientific and standardized will affect the proceeding justice and the substantive justice directly. It has significant and far-reaching significance. At present, there is still some vague understanding on the identification of the conclusion. The judge always ignored the identification of concluded proceeding and substantive review. The state is very dangerous to solve the criminal cases. Research on the Identification of conclusion is necessary.Article is divided into four chapters, a total of 30,000 words:Chapter I Overview of the adoptive system of expert conclusion. The identification of the expert conclusion is a activity that after the cross-examination about the conclusion, the judges identifies the admissibility and the competency of the expert conclusion. The certification of the conclusion is necessary because of the law and the characteristics that the expert conclusion is vulnerable to the influence of the subjective and the objective environment. The theoretical basis of the identification to the conclusion is the experience reductionism and the fundamentalism."Experience reductionism"has irreconcilable contradiction with mixed tension. It's very difficult to explain the rationality of evidence. But the"Fundamentalism"eases the tension and it's relatively reasonable to explain why the evidence is not true. From the national legislative provisions forensic point of view,"Fundamentalism"is also a general trend as the theoretical basis. Which theoretical basis we choose lead to a dispute. Whether the conclusion binds the judges? There are three types of view that the binding view, the freedom view and the compromise view. There are deficiencies in before two points. Compromise views confirmed the conclusions made by experts and their interpretation. While respecting the certification process of judges in the free evaluation of evidence, compromise opinion is more desirable.Chapter II The deficiencies on the adoptive system of the expert conclusion. We lack the adoptive rules for the expert conclusion as present. Practice shows that making a series of standardized certification rules is imperative. We also have not the regulations for the debatable expert conclusions. It's difficult to the result of the identification. Most experts do not appear in court to answer questions. The non-appearance has become normal practice and the legal aspects of the problem also have some defects. There are inadequacies in the understanding of the free evaluation of evidence. It's resulted in some problems.Chapter III The establishment of the rules adoptive of the expert conclusion. The adoptive rule is a series of specific and detailed rules that the judge should follow on the process of adopting the evidence initiatively. I proposed seven rules. Expert in court to answer questions is the basis condition for adopt the conclusion. It's of great significance for the trial. In fact, in the primary task of our conclusions certification system is to establish and improve the rules that the expert appear in the court to answer questions. Evaluation of the scientific expert conclusion is mainly on the Identification rules applied by the scientific principles and technological methods, including empirical knowledge, and other expertise. The rules of judging the legitimacy of expert conclusion is mainly reflected in the identification of the main legal form of legal conclusions, and identify sources of legitimate content. Uncertainty rules are that conclusions need for certainty. The conclusion can not be plausible. Otherwise it's inadmissible. The selective rules of the controversial conclusions include some rules that a choice between a variety of conclusions and a choice among the same kind of conclusions. Identification method that has been established, more objective conclusions is more credible the expert conclusion that is doped with the subjective factors is less credible. For the same kind of conclusions the choice of controversial proposals is introducing the"cultural evidence review process". The publicity of the free evaluation of evidence can limited the identification of conclusions acting by judges.Chapter IV The improvement of the adoptive procedure of the expert conclusion. The expert appearing in the court to answer questions is the foundation that the judges identify the conclusion. It is necessary. It can increase the trust of the conclusions and to some extent can reduce the controversial conclusions, thereby can ensure fair and objective decision. To improve the confrontational procedure we should improve the rights of the expert, set some appearing exceptions. And we should give the expert some right to remuneration. At the same time, we should improve the free evaluation of evidence on the expert conclusion of the application process. We must set a clear recognition of the free evaluation of evidence and explain the conclusions through strengthening the verdict and carry out exchanges. It makes the free evaluation of evidence objective. The pattern of adoptive system is mainly on the"divide and rule certification"mode and"combined certification"model, and certification in court and under the court. We should learn the advantages of expert identification pattern, and we should absorb the reform results from civil law countries about exchanging evidence before the court. We should build the relative step process pattern. However, there is also some situation the conclusion to be admitted without objection. At this time we can certificate the conclusion combined. We should identify the admissibility of the expert conclusion and a part of the competency of the expert conclusion in the court. When there are objection or still are objection after cross-examination, the judges should be allowed to identify the expert conclusion under the court.The identification of the criminal expert conclusion is a practical and system problem. We more concerned about the reform of the conclusion system along the process of our judicial system reform. The in-depth study can make the conclusion identification orderly. We should put the preliminary study as a starting point, and put in more practical exploration and theoretical research. Through a more in-depth research and accumulate practical experience, the mystery of the criminal expert conclusion will soon be lifted.