發(fā)布時(shí)間：2018-05-13 08:42

  本文選題：DNA證據(jù) + 采信　； 參考：《南京師范大學(xué)》2017年碩士論文

【摘要】：近年來(lái),DNA證據(jù)被廣泛應(yīng)用于刑事案件的事實(shí)認(rèn)定中,為案件偵破提供了極大的幫助,被譽(yù)為“證據(jù)之王”。從證據(jù)法的視角出發(fā),若一份證據(jù)具有可采性,必須滿足合法性、客觀性、關(guān)聯(lián)性等條件,而DNA證據(jù)作為科學(xué)證據(jù)的一種,在實(shí)踐中易被認(rèn)定為定案的關(guān)鍵證據(jù),因而其被采信的標(biāo)準(zhǔn)應(yīng)當(dāng)比一般證據(jù)更為嚴(yán)苛,從DNA樣本的采集、運(yùn)送、保管、鑒定,到形成鑒定意見(jiàn)并被采信以說(shuō)明案件事實(shí),必須保證每個(gè)環(huán)節(jié)的準(zhǔn)確無(wú)誤。然而,DNA鑒定意見(jiàn)本身為概率性結(jié)果,且鑒定過(guò)程、證據(jù)認(rèn)定均存在人為因素,使DNA證據(jù)并非不容置疑。反觀我國(guó)司法實(shí)踐,控辯雙方甚至法官過(guò)度依賴DNA證據(jù),存在質(zhì)證不足、審查形式化傾向。故此,本文從理論和實(shí)踐兩個(gè)方面出發(fā),系統(tǒng)分析了 DNA證據(jù)的審查認(rèn)定程序,并嘗試提出若干審查標(biāo)準(zhǔn)和制度建設(shè)方面的建議。第一部分是關(guān)于DNA證據(jù)司法認(rèn)定的概述。主要從DNA證據(jù)的概念和屬性入手,探究DNA證據(jù)的科學(xué)基礎(chǔ),分析其在刑事司法領(lǐng)域的獨(dú)特證明價(jià)值和訴訟價(jià)值,并針對(duì)目前DNA證據(jù)司法認(rèn)定現(xiàn)狀,分析了加強(qiáng)DNA證據(jù)司法認(rèn)定的必要性。第二部分是關(guān)于DNA證據(jù)司法認(rèn)定的域外考察,主要包括英國(guó)、美國(guó)和德國(guó)DNA證據(jù)認(rèn)定的規(guī)則和現(xiàn)狀。除DNA證據(jù)立法概況外,本文還分別介紹了三國(guó)具有代表性的制度和規(guī)則,包括英國(guó)辯護(hù)方審前知情權(quán)和庭審中質(zhì)證規(guī)則、美國(guó)DNA證據(jù)準(zhǔn)入標(biāo)準(zhǔn)和專家證人制度、德國(guó)DNA樣本采集程序和鑒定人約束規(guī)則等。第三部分是關(guān)于DNA證據(jù)審查認(rèn)定的論述。列舉了 DNA證據(jù)認(rèn)識(shí)中的風(fēng)險(xiǎn),說(shuō)明DNA并非不可置疑的“鐵證”,并從證據(jù)資格和證明力兩方面對(duì)如何認(rèn)定提出可行性建議。第四部分是關(guān)于完善DNA證據(jù)認(rèn)定的程序構(gòu)建。文章指出了當(dāng)前DNA認(rèn)定程序中存在的問(wèn)題,有針對(duì)性地提出了應(yīng)當(dāng)逐步健全鑒定人出庭制度、專家輔助人制度。同時(shí),應(yīng)當(dāng)完善交叉詢問(wèn)制度以實(shí)現(xiàn)雙方的有效質(zhì)證,保障DNA證據(jù)的真實(shí)性和可靠性。本文通過(guò)重構(gòu)審查認(rèn)定標(biāo)準(zhǔn)和完善相關(guān)程序,力圖推動(dòng)DNA證據(jù)審查實(shí)質(zhì)化進(jìn)程,幫助審判者科學(xué)認(rèn)定DNA證據(jù)的證據(jù)效力和證明力,實(shí)現(xiàn)法庭的公正審判。
[Abstract]:In recent years, DNA evidence has been widely used in the fact determination of criminal cases, which provides a great help for the detection of cases and is known as the "king of evidence". From the point of view of evidence law, if a piece of evidence is admissible, it must satisfy the conditions of legality, objectivity, relevance and so on. As a kind of scientific evidence, DNA evidence is easy to be considered as the key evidence of decision in practice. Therefore, the standard of its acceptance should be more stringent than that of general evidence, from the collection, transportation, custody, identification of DNA samples to the formation of appraisal opinions and acceptance to explain the facts of the case, it is necessary to ensure the accuracy of each link. However, the opinion itself is a probabilistic result, and the identification process and evidence are determined by human factors, making the DNA evidence is not beyond doubt. On the contrary, in our judicial practice, the prosecution and defense parties and even the judges rely too much on DNA evidence, which leads to insufficient cross-examination and a tendency to examine the formalization. Therefore, this paper systematically analyzes the procedure of DNA evidence examination from two aspects of theory and practice, and tries to put forward some suggestions on the construction of review standard and system. The first part is about the summary of DNA evidence judicial confirmation. Starting with the concept and attribute of DNA evidence, this paper probes into the scientific basis of DNA evidence, analyzes its unique value of proof and litigation value in the field of criminal justice, and aims at the current situation of judicial cognizance of DNA evidence. The necessity of strengthening the judicial confirmation of DNA evidence is analyzed. The second part is about the DNA evidence judicial recognition of the extraterritorial investigation, mainly including the United Kingdom, the United States and Germany, the rules of DNA evidence and the status quo. In addition to the general situation of DNA evidence legislation, this paper also introduces the representative systems and rules of the three countries, including the right of the British defence to know before trial and the rules of cross-examination in court, the DNA evidence admission standard of the United States and the system of expert witnesses. German DNA sample collection program and authentication rules. The third part is about the DNA evidence review confirmation discussion. This paper enumerates the risks in the cognition of DNA evidence, explains that DNA is not an indisputable "ironproof", and puts forward some feasible suggestions on how to identify the evidence from two aspects: the qualification and the power of proof. The fourth part is about perfecting the procedure construction of DNA evidence confirmation. This paper points out the problems existing in the current procedure of DNA identification, and puts forward that the system of expert assistant and expert assistant should be perfected step by step. At the same time, we should perfect the cross-examination system to realize the effective cross-examination of both sides and ensure the authenticity and reliability of DNA evidence. This paper tries to promote the substantial process of DNA evidence review by reconstructing the standards of examination and confirmation and perfecting the relevant procedures to help the judges scientifically identify the evidence effectiveness and proof power of DNA evidence and to realize the fair trial of the court.
【學(xué)位授予單位】：南京師范大學(xué)
【學(xué)位級(jí)別】：碩士
【學(xué)位授予年份】：2017
【分類號(hào)】：D925.2

【參考文獻(xiàn)】

相關(guān)期刊論文 前10條

1 劉曉兵;;交叉詢問(wèn)質(zhì)證功能論略[J];證據(jù)科學(xué);2016年04期

2 琚明亮;;鑒定人出庭作證規(guī)則研究[J];研究生法學(xué);2015年05期

3 王志剛;;論DNA證據(jù)的鑒真[J];證據(jù)科學(xué);2015年03期

4 楊英倉(cāng);;司法鑒定人出庭作證制度構(gòu)建[J];人民檢察;2014年12期

5 樊崇義;趙培顯;;論客觀性證據(jù)審查模式[J];中國(guó)刑事法雜志;2014年01期

6 王進(jìn)喜;李小愷;;論《刑事訴訟法》修改對(duì)司法鑒定活動(dòng)的影響[J];中國(guó)司法;2012年09期

7 劉建偉;;論我國(guó)司法鑒定人出庭作證制度的完善[J];中國(guó)司法鑒定;2010年05期

8 施曉玲;;鑒定人出庭質(zhì)證的相關(guān)法律問(wèn)題[J];中國(guó)司法鑒定;2010年03期

9 汪建成;;中國(guó)刑事司法鑒定制度實(shí)證調(diào)研報(bào)告[J];中外法學(xué);2010年02期

10 陳嵐;;我國(guó)刑事審判中交叉詢問(wèn)規(guī)則之建構(gòu)[J];法學(xué)評(píng)論;2009年06期

相關(guān)重要報(bào)紙文章 前1條

1 寧紅;;刑事訴訟鑒定人出庭率為何低[N];江蘇法制報(bào);2008年

，

本文編號(hào)：1882459