Reliability evaluation of a forensic expert's opinion: World practices and Ukrainian realities

Q3 Arts and Humanities
V. Zhuravel, Violetta E. Konovalova, Galina K. Avdeyeva
{"title":"Reliability evaluation of a forensic expert's opinion: World practices and Ukrainian realities","authors":"V. Zhuravel, Violetta E. Konovalova, Galina K. Avdeyeva","doi":"10.37635/jnalsu.28(2).2021.252-261","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Improving the activities of pre-trial investigation and judicial review largely depends on the increased use of special knowledge in forensic investigative practice and, above all, the involvement of an expert and their analysis. The relevance of the subject matter is explained by the need to introduce new forms and approaches to evaluating the reliability of expert opinions, in particular with the involvement of independent specialists of the corresponding speciality. The purpose of this study was to provide arguments regarding the expediency of attracting knowledgeable persons as reviewers to evaluate the objectivity and completeness of forensic analysis, the correctness of the methods and techniques applied by the expert, and the validity of the opinion. To achieve this purpose, the following general scientific and special research methods were used: Aristotelian, comparative legal, functional, sociological, statistical, system and formal legal analysis, legal modelling, and forecasting. It was established that in the vast majority of countries of the world, except Ukraine, an independent, knowledgeable person with special knowledge in the corresponding field is involved to help evaluate the reliability of an expert opinion. It was proved that contacting knowledgeable persons to evaluate the objectivity, validity, completeness of expert research helps establish the causality between the identified features of the object of analysis and the fact that is subject to establishment, and also gives grounds for determining the affiliation, admissibility, reliability, and sufficiency of the expert opinion. At the same time, a specialist's review cannot serve as a source of evidence, but only has an auxiliary (advisory, technical) nature and can serve as a basis for appointing a second (additional) forensic analysis or a cross-examination of the expert and the reviewer. To exercise the rights of individuals to fair justice, it is proposed to introduce this procedure for evaluating the reliability of expert opinions in Ukraine, with the necessary changes in the current procedural legislation of Ukraine to provide an opportunity for participants in criminal proceedings and the victim to attract knowledgeable persons as reviewers of expert opinions","PeriodicalId":36101,"journal":{"name":"Journal of the National Academy of Legal Sciences of Ukraine","volume":"17 52","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2021-06-25","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of the National Academy of Legal Sciences of Ukraine","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.37635/jnalsu.28(2).2021.252-261","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"Arts and Humanities","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

Abstract

Improving the activities of pre-trial investigation and judicial review largely depends on the increased use of special knowledge in forensic investigative practice and, above all, the involvement of an expert and their analysis. The relevance of the subject matter is explained by the need to introduce new forms and approaches to evaluating the reliability of expert opinions, in particular with the involvement of independent specialists of the corresponding speciality. The purpose of this study was to provide arguments regarding the expediency of attracting knowledgeable persons as reviewers to evaluate the objectivity and completeness of forensic analysis, the correctness of the methods and techniques applied by the expert, and the validity of the opinion. To achieve this purpose, the following general scientific and special research methods were used: Aristotelian, comparative legal, functional, sociological, statistical, system and formal legal analysis, legal modelling, and forecasting. It was established that in the vast majority of countries of the world, except Ukraine, an independent, knowledgeable person with special knowledge in the corresponding field is involved to help evaluate the reliability of an expert opinion. It was proved that contacting knowledgeable persons to evaluate the objectivity, validity, completeness of expert research helps establish the causality between the identified features of the object of analysis and the fact that is subject to establishment, and also gives grounds for determining the affiliation, admissibility, reliability, and sufficiency of the expert opinion. At the same time, a specialist's review cannot serve as a source of evidence, but only has an auxiliary (advisory, technical) nature and can serve as a basis for appointing a second (additional) forensic analysis or a cross-examination of the expert and the reviewer. To exercise the rights of individuals to fair justice, it is proposed to introduce this procedure for evaluating the reliability of expert opinions in Ukraine, with the necessary changes in the current procedural legislation of Ukraine to provide an opportunity for participants in criminal proceedings and the victim to attract knowledgeable persons as reviewers of expert opinions
法医专家意见的可靠性评估:世界惯例和乌克兰现实
改进审判前调查和司法审查活动在很大程度上取决于在法医调查实践中更多地使用专门知识,首先是专家的参与及其分析。这一主题的相关性是由于需要采用新的形式和方法来评估专家意见的可靠性,特别是在相应专业的独立专家参与的情况下。本研究的目的是就吸引知识渊博的人作为评审者来评估法医分析的客观性和完整性、专家使用的方法和技术的正确性以及意见的有效性提供论据。为了实现这一目的,使用了以下一般科学和特殊研究方法:亚里士多德、比较法学、功能、社会学、统计学、系统和正式法律分析、法律建模和预测。确定的是,在世界上绝大多数国家,除乌克兰外,都有一名在相应领域具有专门知识的独立、知识渊博的人参与,以帮助评估专家意见的可靠性。事实证明,联系有知识的人来评估专家研究的客观性、有效性和完整性,有助于确定分析对象的已识别特征与需要确定的事实之间的因果关系,也为确定专家意见的隶属关系、可采性、可靠性和充分性提供了依据。同时,专家的审查不能作为证据来源,而只能具有辅助(咨询、技术)性质,并可作为指定第二次(额外)法医分析或专家和审稿人交叉询问的基础。为了行使个人获得公平正义的权利,建议在乌克兰引入这一评估专家意见可靠性的程序,同时对乌克兰目前的程序法进行必要的修改,以便为刑事诉讼的参与者和受害者提供机会,吸引知识渊博的人作为专家意见的审稿人
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
15
×
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