Problems And Solutions Of Research On Judicial Expertise

Forensic system attaches its importance to litigations as the significant composition of justice in this country. Justice history and some deficits of forensic system, however, result into some practical problems. This situation is aberrant from the goal of justice reforms.This research demonstrates a case as an analysis example, in which a party (Cai Chunjie) continuously appeals against the previous torensic opinions. The party asked for four deferent forensic organizations to assess his human body injury degree. Nevertheless, he gained three deferent types of opinions. In this case, it could be found that some problems still exist in forensics in this county: without uniform organizations of forensics, disorder of forensic administration, low rates of examiners’appearance in court, and abusing right to re-examination, etc. Confronted such problems, some problem-resolving schemes have to be presented on the basis of Criminal Procedure Law (2012): the rights to forensics have to be redistributed; forensic criteria have to be unified; the admittable conditions of forensic organizations and examiners have to be improved; the forensic labs have to be strengthened; the rates of examiners’appearance in court have to be increased by the innovative systems of cross examination; misconducts in forensics have to be rigorously punished; the conditions of restarting forensic have to revised so as to prevent from abusing the right to reexamination.Cai Chunjie case had happened before Criminal Procedure Law (2012) and other regulations were enacted, yet this case reflects the situations on forensic practice which had not been changed significantly. Therefore, Cai Chunjie case has its own typical meaning and presents some problems of forensics in this country. Certainly, the problem-resolving schemes designed in this research have to be tested by the realities.