不确定笔迹鉴定结论研究

The Research of Uncertain Handwriting Identification

成果信息
DC信息
传播影响力
本库下载频次:
本库浏览频次:
CNKI下载频次:0

归属院系：

刑事侦查学院

作者：

何延鹏

导师：

戴浩霖

学位：

硕士

语种：

中文

关键词：

司法鉴定;笔迹学;不确定结论;倾向性;检材

摘要：

基于不断完善的诉讼制度以及人们对司法审判中实体真实与程序正当之兼顾,科学技术问题已经逐步代替法律问题,成为在诉讼过程中的关注焦点。大量审判实例告诉我们,科学尚未充分说服公众的领域常常会成为法律争论的焦点。 随着我国依法治国进程的不断深化,法官在审判活动中对相关专业性证据的把握越来越依靠司法鉴定。笔迹鉴定是司法鉴定中的重要组成部分,在大量实践中,笔迹鉴定结论存在一类根据鉴定条件不可能做出完全“肯定”或者“否定”的情况。对于鉴定人员无法提供100%确定性鉴定结论的科学问题,以裁判官为代表的证据调查者也不能再一味地要求从鉴定人员处得到确定性的结论。因为如果这样,就会有人冒险以鉴定领域的专家权威性来取代法官的司法权威性,这对于正义的保障与科学的进步没有丝毫益处。 本文从鉴定活动的逻辑起点出发,循序渐进,结合统计数字与充分的真实案例,试图较为系统全面地完成对不确定笔迹鉴定结论的完整认识与应用。全文三万四千余字,共分为四大部分,第四部分为文章的重点。 文章第一部分为绪论,是阐述不确定笔迹鉴定问题的逻辑起点。从科学的含义逐步推导到司法鉴定领域,进而对不确定笔迹鉴定结论做出描述性定义。在阐述不确定笔迹鉴定结论的研究意义时,一方面引用了大量统计数据,一方面结合了现行有效的法律、行政法规、司法解释,展现了不确定笔迹鉴定结论客观存在却又受制于种种条件的尴尬境地。在绪论的后半部分,对我国古代、近代的笔迹鉴定进行了概括性的考究,对于新中国成立后,尤其是对《全国人民代表大会常务委员会关于司法鉴定管理问题的决定》颁布实施后的相关数据进行了统计分析,为下文展开论述做出必要的形象描述与理论铺垫。 第二部分论述的内容是不确定笔迹鉴定结论的科学基础。本部分简要讨论了书写习惯的特殊性、稳定性、反映性问题。本部分力求简明扼要,从笔迹学的角度简明叙述下文所需要的理论基础。 文章第三部分首先依托了恩格斯的自然辩证法的基本思想,结合现行法律制度对不确定笔迹鉴定结论存在的合理性给予理论论证。法律的制定者没有取消不确定笔迹鉴定?结论的证据效力,这其中除了法律制定的谨慎性之外,显然还存在着其它考虑。在理论证明之外,文章随后对西南政法大学司法鉴定中心的典型月度鉴定情况进行统计,作为支持现实性的依据。第二部分整体上通过大量笔迹鉴定实例,论证了不确定笔迹鉴定结论产生的主观原因、客观条件,其中较为详细地讨论了客观条件中的诸多限制因素,尤以检材与样本的限制条件为重点讨论对象。 第四部分是文章最为重点的部分,讨论了如何科学地应用不确定笔迹鉴定结论。Frye规则的确立对美国法庭科学体系的建立具有重大而深远的影响,它建立了科学技术进入法庭的门槛。但随着历史的演进及科学的发展,美国又对Frye规则进行了修正,甚至后来建立了几乎完全相反的综合观察标准,直至现在对证据规则的修订,这无疑体现了科学技术与司法制度之间不断契合的过程,对我国具有重要的借鉴意义。对于不确定笔迹鉴定结论来讲,结论本身的“模糊性”更要求鉴定人对鉴定资料、鉴定方法、鉴定依据的审查,同时也要求了政府、行业协会等机构组织对鉴定机构与鉴定人资格的审查。另外,笔迹鉴定结论的合法性审查也是本部分的重点之一。“司法证明力的认识误区”部分指出了我国目前实践环节中存在的对不确定笔迹鉴定结论存在的错误认识,并以真实案例为辅佐,归纳了以不合理使用、违规使用为代表的诸多情况。接着,文章对近期我国法院应用不确定司法鉴定结论而做出的审判案例进行讨论,并在相关资料库中找到当时所依据的检材与样本。笔者努力站在笔迹鉴定人与鉴定结论使用者的双重角度,论述了如何正确应用不确定笔迹鉴定结论。该部分是本文理论与实践运用之结合,体现了不确定笔迹鉴定结论不仅可以为侦查提供辅助,在其他证据的配合下共同组成定案的证据锁链,而且在审判中可以通过综合运用举证责任的规定,运用不确定鉴定结论查明案件事实等核心观点。为体现逻辑的周延,文章的最后在相对应的角度简要讨论了对鉴定人随意出具不确定笔迹鉴定结论的规制,并援引2007年至2008年司法部司法鉴定管理机构对司法鉴定行业监督统计分析,力图说明不确定笔迹鉴定结论不是可以随意出具的。

学科：

诉讼法学

提交日期：

2018-01-11

引用参考：

何延鹏. 不确定笔迹鉴定结论研究[D]. 西南政法大学,2010.

全文附件授权许可：

知识共享许可协议-署名

  • dc.title
  • 不确定笔迹鉴定结论研究
  • dc.title
  • The Research of Uncertain Handwriting Identification
  • dc.contributor.schoolno
  • 20070301200768
  • dc.contributor.author
  • 何延鹏
  • dc.contributor.degree
  • 硕士
  • dc.contributor.degreeConferringInstitution
  • 西南政法大学
  • dc.identifier.year
  • 2010
  • dc.contributor.advisor
  • 戴浩霖
  • dc.language.iso
  • 中文
  • dc.subject
  • 司法鉴定;;笔迹学;;不确定结论;;倾向性;;检材
  • dc.subject
  • Forensic;; Graphology;; Uncertain conclusions;; Tendentious;; Samples
  • dc.description.abstract
  • 基于不断完善的诉讼制度以及人们对司法审判中实体真实与程序正当之兼顾,科学技术问题已经逐步代替法律问题,成为在诉讼过程中的关注焦点。大量审判实例告诉我们,科学尚未充分说服公众的领域常常会成为法律争论的焦点。 随着我国依法治国进程的不断深化,法官在审判活动中对相关专业性证据的把握越来越依靠司法鉴定。笔迹鉴定是司法鉴定中的重要组成部分,在大量实践中,笔迹鉴定结论存在一类根据鉴定条件不可能做出完全“肯定”或者“否定”的情况。对于鉴定人员无法提供100%确定性鉴定结论的科学问题,以裁判官为代表的证据调查者也不能再一味地要求从鉴定人员处得到确定性的结论。因为如果这样,就会有人冒险以鉴定领域的专家权威性来取代法官的司法权威性,这对于正义的保障与科学的进步没有丝毫益处。 本文从鉴定活动的逻辑起点出发,循序渐进,结合统计数字与充分的真实案例,试图较为系统全面地完成对不确定笔迹鉴定结论的完整认识与应用。全文三万四千余字,共分为四大部分,第四部分为文章的重点。 文章第一部分为绪论,是阐述不确定笔迹鉴定问题的逻辑起点。从科学的含义逐步推导到司法鉴定领域,进而对不确定笔迹鉴定结论做出描述性定义。在阐述不确定笔迹鉴定结论的研究意义时,一方面引用了大量统计数据,一方面结合了现行有效的法律、行政法规、司法解释,展现了不确定笔迹鉴定结论客观存在却又受制于种种条件的尴尬境地。在绪论的后半部分,对我国古代、近代的笔迹鉴定进行了概括性的考究,对于新中国成立后,尤其是对《全国人民代表大会常务委员会关于司法鉴定管理问题的决定》颁布实施后的相关数据进行了统计分析,为下文展开论述做出必要的形象描述与理论铺垫。 第二部分论述的内容是不确定笔迹鉴定结论的科学基础。本部分简要讨论了书写习惯的特殊性、稳定性、反映性问题。本部分力求简明扼要,从笔迹学的角度简明叙述下文所需要的理论基础。 文章第三部分首先依托了恩格斯的自然辩证法的基本思想,结合现行法律制度对不确定笔迹鉴定结论存在的合理性给予理论论证。法律的制定者没有取消不确定笔迹鉴定?结论的证据效力,这其中除了法律制定的谨慎性之外,显然还存在着其它考虑。在理论证明之外,文章随后对西南政法大学司法鉴定中心的典型月度鉴定情况进行统计,作为支持现实性的依据。第二部分整体上通过大量笔迹鉴定实例,论证了不确定笔迹鉴定结论产生的主观原因、客观条件,其中较为详细地讨论了客观条件中的诸多限制因素,尤以检材与样本的限制条件为重点讨论对象。 第四部分是文章最为重点的部分,讨论了如何科学地应用不确定笔迹鉴定结论。Frye规则的确立对美国法庭科学体系的建立具有重大而深远的影响,它建立了科学技术进入法庭的门槛。但随着历史的演进及科学的发展,美国又对Frye规则进行了修正,甚至后来建立了几乎完全相反的综合观察标准,直至现在对证据规则的修订,这无疑体现了科学技术与司法制度之间不断契合的过程,对我国具有重要的借鉴意义。对于不确定笔迹鉴定结论来讲,结论本身的“模糊性”更要求鉴定人对鉴定资料、鉴定方法、鉴定依据的审查,同时也要求了政府、行业协会等机构组织对鉴定机构与鉴定人资格的审查。另外,笔迹鉴定结论的合法性审查也是本部分的重点之一。“司法证明力的认识误区”部分指出了我国目前实践环节中存在的对不确定笔迹鉴定结论存在的错误认识,并以真实案例为辅佐,归纳了以不合理使用、违规使用为代表的诸多情况。接着,文章对近期我国法院应用不确定司法鉴定结论而做出的审判案例进行讨论,并在相关资料库中找到当时所依据的检材与样本。笔者努力站在笔迹鉴定人与鉴定结论使用者的双重角度,论述了如何正确应用不确定笔迹鉴定结论。该部分是本文理论与实践运用之结合,体现了不确定笔迹鉴定结论不仅可以为侦查提供辅助,在其他证据的配合下共同组成定案的证据锁链,而且在审判中可以通过综合运用举证责任的规定,运用不确定鉴定结论查明案件事实等核心观点。为体现逻辑的周延,文章的最后在相对应的角度简要讨论了对鉴定人随意出具不确定笔迹鉴定结论的规制,并援引2007年至2008年司法部司法鉴定管理机构对司法鉴定行业监督统计分析,力图说明不确定笔迹鉴定结论不是可以随意出具的。
  • dc.description.abstract
  • Based on continuous improvement of the litigation system and the people's justice in the entity of both real and procedural due process, science and technology issues have been gradually replaced by legal issues, becoming the focus of attention during the proceedings. A large number of trial examples tell us that science has not yet to fully convince the public of the area is often the focus of debate of the law. As China's process of deepening the rule of law, the judge dependent on expert testimony in the judicial activities of the relevant professional grasp of the evidence increasingly. Forensic handwriting identification is an important component of the expert testimony. There is a kind of handwriting expert conclusion which is impossible to be completely under the identified conditions, "yes" or "negative" situation. In some cases, experts are unable to provide 100% certainty of identification of the conclusions. Evidence investigators such as magistrates can’t provide certainty of mandatory identification conclusions. Evidence investigators such as magistrate could not ask them to give firm conclusions. Because if so, would someone risk to identify the authoritative experts in the field to replace the judge's judicial authority, which has the slightest benefit for the security of justice and the progress of science. This paper begins in identifying activities, proceed step by step, combined with the real statistics and the full case, trying to complete a more systematic and comprehensive manner the integrity of the conclusions uncertain handwriting identification and application of knowledge. The paper is more than 34000 characters, which is divided into four parts, the fourth is divided into the focus of the article. The first section is the introduction, which describes the logical starting point of the uncertain handwriting identification of the problem. In describing the study findings of the uncertain handwriting identification, the article quoted a lot of statistical data, the current effective laws, administrative regulations, judicial interpretation. This kind of identification is in an embarrassing occasion, which is objective but restricted. In the second half of the first section, the article briefly discusses the ancient and modern Chinese handwriting identification. The article adds up the statistics which was created in the new China, particularly after the implementation of the "National People's Congress Standing Committee on Judicial Expertise management decision". This gives provides the following text a necessary exposition. The second part discusses the basis for the uncertain handwriting identification. This section briefly discusses the special nature of writing habits, stability, reflecting the issues. This section describes the very simple, in order to pave the way for the following, from the perspective of graphology. The third part of the article relies on the basic idea in the natural dialectics of Engels. Combined with the existing legal system, it provides theoretical arguments for the handwriting expert conclusion on the existence of uncertain legitimacy. The law-makers did not cancel the effectiveness of the evidence which is in the uncertain handwriting identification. Apart from the cautious nature of the law-making in addition, apparently, there are still other considerations. The article counts a typical monthly statistics of the Center for Forensic Identification in Southwest University of Political Science and Law. This part uses a large number of examples of handwriting identification, demonstrates the uncertainty stemming from the conclusions of the subjective reasons, objective conditions, a more detailed discussion of the objective conditions of the many constraints, especially review material and sample restrictions for the focus on the object. The fourth component is the most important part of the papers, it discussed how to use the uncertainty of scientific handwriting conclusion. Frye on the U.S. courts to establish the rules of the establishment of a scientific system of major and has far-reaching impact, it established a qualification for the science and technology into the courts. However, with the history, evolution and the development of science, the United States changed the Frye rule, and has established an exactly opposite observation of the standard, until now amending the rules of evidence, which undoubtedly reflects the science and technology and the judicial system of the continuous fit between the processes. For our country, it has an important significance as reference. The handwriting expert conclusion for the uncertain terms, conclusions own "ambiguity", it asked an expert to identify the data, identification method, identification is based on the review and also asked the government, trade associations and other institutions and organizations to identify the bodies and the qualifications of expert witnesses . In addition, the legitimacy of the review of the handwriting expert conclusion is also one of the priorities in this section. " the misunderstanding of Judicial power " says there is the section of our current practice of uncertainty that exist in the handwriting expert conclusion on the existence of misconceptions, and based on real cases as assistant, summed up unreasonable use, illegal use with a number of cases represented by . Then, the article discusses the trial of cases on the recent uncertainty in China by applying the conclusions made by expert testimony. The paper finds the inspection and sample material on that time. I strive to use the dual perspective of the user and the identification of the handwriting expert, discuss how to use the proper application of the handwriting uncertain conclusion. That part is the combination of theory and practical application, reflects the uncertainty handwriting expert conclusion can not only provide support for the investigation, in conjunction with other evidence, the evidence together constitute the final decision chains, but also in the trial, through the integrated use of the provisions of and apply the conclusions to identify cases of uncertain identification of the fact which is the core point of view. In order to reflect the logic of being thorough, the article has a brief discussion of the handwriting expert free appraisal issued by the conclusions of uncertain regulation, citing the Ministry of Justice from 2007 to 2008 of Forensic Identification of the industry governing body of judicial supervision of statistical analysis, attempt to explain the conclusions uncertain handwriting identification can not be made arbitrarily issued.
  • dc.subject.discipline
  • D918.9
  • dc.date.issued
  • 2010-03-20
回到顶部