【作者】 赵军；

【导师】 宋显忠；

【作者基本信息】 吉林大学 ， 法学理论， 2011， 硕士

【摘要】 随着科学技术的迅猛发展,司法事实认定越来越受到科学技术的猛烈冲击。大量科学证据涌入法庭,使得双方当事人及事实审理者难以掌握,纵观司法事实认定中科学证据的发展历史,可以看出,其呈现出多学科化、理论化和专业化的趋势,这一趋势更加使得司法事实认定中的科学证据超出法庭的掌控之外。本文认为主观上对于客观真实的追求是司法事实认定引入科学证据的原因,客观上专业化的社会分工使这一趋势成为必然。从世界各国的司法实践来看,解决事实审理者知识上的欠缺与事实问题专业化程度不断提高之间的矛盾,主要是通过将科学技术以科学证据的形式引入司法领域这一路径。尽管各国在具体引入方式和制度设置方面迥异,但是总的来说均是这一思路。然而由于当事人及事实审理者缺乏相应的科学知识,使得科学证据在法庭上难以得到公正的评价,科学证据本应具有的辅助事实认定的功能难以实现,并由此而产生了理论上的悖论,有违司法独立的理念。实践中更有将司法事实认定中的科学证据视为真理而盲目崇拜或将其视为科学研究活动而使法庭成为无尽的科学论战战场的现象。因此科学证据的正当性及其使用实效受到质疑。实践中各国也相继出现了大量的问题,例如美国对于专家证言证据能力规则曾几度变迁,且至今尚未达成统一的结论。从中国的实践来看,鉴定结论混乱的现状已经成为当今司法领域的突出问题。将科学证据引入到司法领域究竟能否弥补事实审理者知识、能力上的缺陷,是现在亟待考察的问题。面对上述理论及实践问题,本文认为司法事实认定中的科学证据的本质是专家根据科学知识所作出的对于案件事实的意见,因此带有一定的主观性,这便为其受到法律规制提供了正当性基础。而科学技术进入司法事实认定的主要形式是鉴定结论和专家证言,即科学证据,除此之外还包括质证、认证等程序中使用的科学技术,因此对其进行规制既需重视其证据能力,又要构建适合科学证据的程序,正确评价其证明力。证据能力是对科学证据质的考察,可借鉴英美法系的专家证据的可采性规则,并辅之以专家咨询制度和鉴定费的相关安排予以解决。证明力是对科学证据量的考察,是在以认证为最终环节的整个程序中确定的,因此应该建立科学的适应科学证据发展趋势的事实认定程序。只有这样才能使司法事实认定中的科学证据走上正途。更多还原

【Abstract】 The rapid development of science and technology make more and more influence on judicial finding of fact. A lot of scientific evidence in the court makes the both sides parties and the judge difficult to grasp it. Facing history of the scientific evidence, we can see it showing a multi-disciplinary, theoretical and professional tendency; these trends make scientific evidence though judicial finding of fact out of the control of the court.This paper argues that the pursuit of objective truth is the reason for the introduction of scientific evidence, professional social division of labor makes this trend inevitable. Analyzing the judicial practice around the world, to address the contradiction between lack of knowledge on the issue and increasing degree of specialization, the court introduce scientific knowledge in the form of scientific evidence. Although different countries structure different methods and system settings, but they are the same in general. However, due to the fact that the parties and the judge are lack of appropriate scientific knowledge, scientific evidence in court is so hard to get a fair evaluation. The function of scientific evidence that supporting finding the fact is difficult to achieve, and result theoretical paradox, which is contrary to the concept of judicial independence. In the judicial practice, there are two different phenomenons, one is to see scientific evidence as the truth and blind worship, the other is to see it as scientific research activities and debate endless in court. Therefore, the legitimacy and effectiveness of scientific evidence is questioned.Countries have also emerged a number of issues in the judicial practice, such as the rules of expert testimony has several times changing in the United States, and has not reached a unified conclusion yet. Scanning Chinese judicial practice, expert conclusions have become the outstanding issues of justice. The question whether scientific evidence will make up for the deficiencies in the knowledge and capacity of the parties and the judge, needs urgent investigation.Facing the theoretical and practical issues above, this paper reveal that scientific evidence is in the nature of the comments based on scientific knowledge of the experts, which has a certain degree of subjectivity. This is the legitimacy for scientific evidence to be regulated. Scientific evidence is the main form of science and technology in the judicial finding of fact, so to regulate it requires attention not only on the competency of evidence but also the probative force of evidence.Competency of evidence is a qualitative category, to govern it of scientific evidence; we can learn from rule of expert testimony in America and U.K., structure expert consulting system and distribute the costs of identification. Probative force is a metrizable category, which is fixed though the certification process. To govern it of scientific evidence, we should improve the whole procedures to meet the scientific evidence. Only in this way can the scientific evidence be treated correctly.更多还原