Methodology and objects of assessment of the expert’s opinion by the state prosecutor


如何引用文章

全文:

开放存取 开放存取
受限制的访问 ##reader.subscriptionAccessGranted##
受限制的访问 订阅或者付费存取

详细

Purpose of the study. Consideration of the problems existing in the practice of analysis, assessment and use of expert opinions by public prosecutors, and their causes. The study of the methodology for the implementation of this activity as a combination of:a) theoretical principles and practical methods, research methods that the prosecutor applies to assess the relevance, admissibility, reliability of the expert’s opinion; b) a system of principles and methods for studying the laws in accordance with which the process of this assessment proceeds. The author briefly considers the principles of: a) legality; b) science; c) systemic; d) objectivity included in the set of principles on which the assessment of the expert’s opinion is based. The author proposes the sequence of the prosecutor’s decision to analyze and evaluate the expert’s opinion, considered as the most rational way of this activity. The set of questions clarified in this case is considered both as a task and as a set of objects of assessment. These objects are divided into two groups, depending on the nature of the main issues to be solved; 1) concerning the assessment of the possibility of using one or another expert opinion as evidence of a charge in court; 2) relating to the definition of tactics of their submission to the court and participation in their research. The article provides examples of the use of individual research methods and assessment of expert opinions: comparative legal, analogy, analysis and synthesis. The results of the study . The analysis and assessment of the expert’s opinion is a complex cognitive process that requires legal and special knowledge, practical experience, knowledge of the methodology of this work from prosecutors. Its use in compliance with the principles that it is based on is one of the ways to increase the professional level of public prosecutors.

全文:

受限制的访问

作者简介

Elena Pavlova

Criminal Justice Department of the Prosecutor’s Office of the Moscow Region

Email: evpavlova12@yandex.ru
deputy head of the Criminal Justice Department of the Prosecutor’s Office Moscow, Russian Federation

参考

  1. Алексеев П.В., Панин А.В. Философия: учебник. 4-е изд., перераб. и доп. М.: Проспект, 2017.
  2. Белкин Р.С., Винберг А.И. Криминалистика и доказывание (методологические проблемы). М.: Юрид. лит-ра, 1969.
  3. Бозров В.М., Костовская Н.В. Некоторые проблемные вопросы оценки доказательств судом // Мировой судья. 2012. № 11. (СПС «КонсультантПлюс) (дата обращения: 01.06.2020).
  4. Исаенко В.Н. Содействие суду в установлении истины - задача поддержания государственного обвинения // Вестник Университета прокуратуры Рос. Федерации. 2020. № 1 (75).
  5. Исаенко В.Н. Экспертная оценка показаний в уголовном судопроизводстве // Законность. 2020. № 2.
  6. Кириллов В.И., Старченко А.А. Логика: учебник для юридических вузов. Изд. 5-е, перераб. и доп. М.: Юристъ, 2004.
  7. Марченко М.Н. Проблемы теории государства и права: учебник. М.: Проспект, 2016.
  8. Орлов О.К. Современные проблемы доказывания и использования специальных знаний в уголовном судопроизводстве: науч.-учеб. пособие. М.: Проспект, 2017.
  9. Петрухин И.Л. Экспертиза как средство доказывания в советском уголовном процессе. М.: Юрид. лит-ра, 1964.
  10. Рахунов Р.Д. Теория и практика экспертизы в советском уголовном процессе. Изд. 2-3, перераб. и доп. М.: Госюриздат, 1953.
  11. Теория доказательств в советском уголовном процессе: монография / отв. ред. Н.В. Жогин; изд. 2-е, испр. и доп. М.: Юрид. лит-ра, 1973.
  12. Экспертиза в уголовном судопроизводстве: учебник / под ред. Е.Р. Россинской. М.: Проспект, 2019.

补充文件

附件文件
动作
1. JATS XML


##common.cookie##