FORENSIC EXAMINATION IN CIVIL AND ECONOMIC PROCEEDINGS AS A SEPARATE FORM OF SPECIAL KNOWLEDGE USE

V. Vasiliev
{"title":"FORENSIC EXAMINATION IN CIVIL AND ECONOMIC PROCEEDINGS AS A SEPARATE FORM OF SPECIAL KNOWLEDGE USE","authors":"V. Vasiliev","doi":"10.32353/khrife.1.2020_08","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"The attention in the article is drawn to the fact that despite the obvious need to bring special knowledge into civil and economic procedural proof, this process is progressing rather slowly as the modern practice of using special knowledge constantly reveals gaps and collisions in procedural norms. Defining forensic science as a separate form of using special knowledge, the article focuses on the interpretation of the “special knowledge” concept by scientists, and concludes that scientific papers explicitly indicate that special knowledge is used by a limited number of specialists, they are inherent in a particular science; could be obtained in the process of training, special training and are applied according to the requirements of current legislation. \nIt is noted that a separate procedural form of special knowledge application is the results of forensic examinations, i.e. for forensic examination conduct it is necessary to involve a specialist who, according to the current legislation, possesses the required sum of special knowledge, which allows him to competently conduct measures that are his functional responsibilities − to provide a forensic report based on their own special, professional knowledge. It is argued that according to the evidence classification, the forensic opinion belongs to personal sources of evidence and, if there are no grounded reasons for disagreement with it, should be taken for granted and used in evidence as a result of research work of an authoritative specialist. It is also emphasized that the forensic report, as an independent forensic evidence in the case, can only be the result of forensic examination, appointed and conducted in strict accordance with the requirements of economic or civil procedural law, the signs by which the forensic report differs from other means of evidence are described. The features that distinguish forensic examination from examinations carried out in other areas of human activity are outlined. It is established that the means of verifying a forensic report in civil and economic proceedings are forensic expert testimony, other evidence provided by the procedure participants and comparing the report with the latter, as well as stressed that the distinction between verification and evaluation of evidence should be conducted according to individual criteria, their characteristic is given.","PeriodicalId":340932,"journal":{"name":"Theory and Practice of Forensic Science and Criminalistics","volume":"155 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2020-12-15","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Theory and Practice of Forensic Science and Criminalistics","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.32353/khrife.1.2020_08","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

Abstract

The attention in the article is drawn to the fact that despite the obvious need to bring special knowledge into civil and economic procedural proof, this process is progressing rather slowly as the modern practice of using special knowledge constantly reveals gaps and collisions in procedural norms. Defining forensic science as a separate form of using special knowledge, the article focuses on the interpretation of the “special knowledge” concept by scientists, and concludes that scientific papers explicitly indicate that special knowledge is used by a limited number of specialists, they are inherent in a particular science; could be obtained in the process of training, special training and are applied according to the requirements of current legislation. It is noted that a separate procedural form of special knowledge application is the results of forensic examinations, i.e. for forensic examination conduct it is necessary to involve a specialist who, according to the current legislation, possesses the required sum of special knowledge, which allows him to competently conduct measures that are his functional responsibilities − to provide a forensic report based on their own special, professional knowledge. It is argued that according to the evidence classification, the forensic opinion belongs to personal sources of evidence and, if there are no grounded reasons for disagreement with it, should be taken for granted and used in evidence as a result of research work of an authoritative specialist. It is also emphasized that the forensic report, as an independent forensic evidence in the case, can only be the result of forensic examination, appointed and conducted in strict accordance with the requirements of economic or civil procedural law, the signs by which the forensic report differs from other means of evidence are described. The features that distinguish forensic examination from examinations carried out in other areas of human activity are outlined. It is established that the means of verifying a forensic report in civil and economic proceedings are forensic expert testimony, other evidence provided by the procedure participants and comparing the report with the latter, as well as stressed that the distinction between verification and evaluation of evidence should be conducted according to individual criteria, their characteristic is given.
司法鉴定在民事和经济诉讼中作为一种单独的特殊知识形式使用
本文提请注意的事实是,尽管明显需要将专业知识纳入民事和经济程序证明,但这一进程进展相当缓慢,因为现代使用专业知识的实践不断暴露出程序规范中的空白和冲突。文章将法医学定义为一种独立的运用专业知识的形式,重点讨论了科学家对“专业知识”概念的解释,并得出结论:科学论文明确表明,专业知识是由有限数量的专家使用的,它们是特定科学所固有的;可以在培训过程中获得,特殊培训和按现行立法要求应用。委员会注意到,应用专门知识的另一种程序形式是法医检查的结果,即,就进行法医检查而言,有必要让一名专家参与,根据现行立法,他拥有所需的专门知识,这使他能够胜任地采取属于他的职能职责的措施- -根据他们自己的专门和专业知识提供法医报告。根据证据分类,法医意见属于个人证据来源,如果没有确凿的理由不同意,则应视为理所当然,并作为权威专家研究工作的结果作为证据使用。还强调,法医报告作为案件中独立的法医证据,只能是严格按照经济或民事诉讼法的要求指定和进行的法医检查的结果,并说明了法医报告区别于其他证据手段的标志。概述了区分法医检查与在人类活动的其他领域进行的检查的特征。确立了民事诉讼和经济诉讼中鉴证报告的手段是鉴证专家的证言、程序参与人提供的其他证据以及鉴证报告与鉴证报告的比较,并强调了鉴证与鉴证的区别应按个别标准进行,给出了它们的特点。
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:481959085
Book学术官方微信