Involvement of a specialist in modern criminal law practice

A. Tarasov
{"title":"Involvement of a specialist in modern criminal law practice","authors":"A. Tarasov","doi":"10.18287/2542-047x-2023-9-1-46-53","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"The improvement of regulatory framework for attracting a specialist to participate in criminal proceedings on the initiative of the defense and other participants in the process who do not have authority is reasonably considered in theory and in practice as an extension of the adversarial principles in the procedures for the use of special knowledge. At the same time, the noticeable bias observed in modern law practice towards the use of expert opinions and testimony in the interests of principals to the detriment of lawyer activity in official procedures for the appointment and production of forensic examinations cannot be considered justified. Seeking the help of a specialist is not an equivalent substitute for participation in forensic expert activities in criminal cases, but rather a forced measure when attempts by a lawyer to participate in the appointment and production of examinations were impossible, or were undertaken, but failed.","PeriodicalId":406056,"journal":{"name":"Juridical Journal of Samara University","volume":"1 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2023-04-12","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Juridical Journal of Samara University","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.18287/2542-047x-2023-9-1-46-53","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

The improvement of regulatory framework for attracting a specialist to participate in criminal proceedings on the initiative of the defense and other participants in the process who do not have authority is reasonably considered in theory and in practice as an extension of the adversarial principles in the procedures for the use of special knowledge. At the same time, the noticeable bias observed in modern law practice towards the use of expert opinions and testimony in the interests of principals to the detriment of lawyer activity in official procedures for the appointment and production of forensic examinations cannot be considered justified. Seeking the help of a specialist is not an equivalent substitute for participation in forensic expert activities in criminal cases, but rather a forced measure when attempts by a lawyer to participate in the appointment and production of examinations were impossible, or were undertaken, but failed.
现代刑法实践中专家的参与
完善由辩方和其他无权限参与人主动吸引专家参与刑事诉讼的监管框架,在理论上和实践中都被合理地视为是对专业知识运用程序中对抗性原则的延伸。与此同时,在现代法律实践中观察到的为委托人的利益使用专家意见和证词而损害律师在任命和进行法医检查的正式程序中的活动的明显偏见,不能被认为是合理的。在刑事案件中,寻求专家的帮助并不是参与法医专家活动的等价替代品,而是在律师不可能参与预约和提供检查结果,或已尝试但失败时采取的一种强制措施。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信