论文部分内容阅读
数易其稿的《关于司法鉴定管理问题的决定》于2005年2月28日终于由全国人大常委会颁布,并于同年10月1日起实施。四年后的今天,有关鉴定制度的改革、完善的讨论似乎已经不再是证据学的前沿问题。但无论从实务还是从理论来看,人们对鉴定制度改革、完善的关注和希冀丝毫没有减弱或淡化,相反,现行鉴定制度的运行折射出的众多问题再次引发我们的思考:如何借鉴、吸收英美法系专家证人制度的精髓并适应我国的法治土壤?如何审查判断鉴定结论?行政鉴定与司法鉴定的关系如何?鉴定结论与错案的关系如何?鉴定人应否出庭作证?鉴定人出庭作证应否收费?民事诉讼辅助人制度的现行问题何在?在本卷来稿中,编委会发现许多专家、实务工作者讨论的问题便没有离开鉴定及鉴定制度这一主题。考虑到鉴定及其结论在纠纷的解决中往往起到重要的作用,而现行的鉴定制度无疑还不能完全满足这种需要,故我们从中精选出如下稿件并将它们置于“前沿聚焦”这一栏目,以期对我国现行鉴定制度的再完善有所裨益。
Several “draft decisions on the administration of judicial appraisals” were finally promulgated by the Standing Committee of the National People’s Congress on February 28, 2005 and implemented on October 1 of the same year. Today, four years later, a sound discussion of the reform of the accreditation system seems to no longer be the forefront of evidence theory. However, no matter from practice or from the theory point of view, people’s attention and hope of the reform of the appraisal system have not been weakened or diluted at all. On the contrary, many problems reflected by the operation of the appraisal system once again lead us to ponder over how to learn from the Anglo-American How to examine the judgment and appraisal conclusion? What is the relationship between administrative appraisal and forensic appraisal? What is the relationship between the appraisal conclusion and the wrong case? Should the appraiser testify in court? Should the appraiser be charged in court? Where is the current problem of the civil litigation sponsor system? In this contribution, the Editorial Board found that many experts and practitioners did not discuss the issue of appraisal and accreditation system. Considering that appraisal and its conclusion often play an important role in the resolution of disputes, and that the current appraisal system certainly can not completely meet this need, we draw the following manuscripts and put them at the forefront of focusing on "This section, with a view to our country’s current system of identification and improvement of some benefit.