DIFFERENCES BETWEEN "SPECIALIST'S OPINION" AND "EXPERT RESEARCH OPINION" IN CASES OF FORENSIC MEDICAL EXAMINATIONS ON A CONTRACTUAL BASIS

Vitalii Povstyani, V. Mishalov
{"title":"DIFFERENCES BETWEEN \"SPECIALIST'S OPINION\" AND \"EXPERT RESEARCH OPINION\" IN CASES OF FORENSIC MEDICAL EXAMINATIONS ON A CONTRACTUAL BASIS","authors":"Vitalii Povstyani, V. Mishalov","doi":"10.24061/2707-8728.2.2023.1","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"The article presents topical issues related to the appointment of forensic medical examinations and research at the request of the defense in criminal proceedings, as well as procedural features of the participation of specialists in expert work at the pre-trial investigation stage. Similarities and differences of subjects using special knowledge, namely specialist and expert, were studied. Ways to improve the participation of specialists in the pre-trial process are proposed. \nAim of the work. The purpose of the work is to determine the differences between the \"Specialist's Opinion\" and the \"Expert Research Conclusion\" in cases of forensic medical examinations on a contractual basis. \nResults. It was established that \"Expert's opinion\", \"Specialist's opinion\", \"Consultation\" cannot correspond to the expert's opinion according to the following criteria: the qualification requirements for persons with special knowledge are different, and the qualification requirements for a specialist at the regulatory level are not defined at all. Similarities and differences of subjects using special knowledge, namely specialist and expert, were studied. Ways to improve the participation of specialists in the pre-trial process are proposed. \nConclusions. If, in order to obtain a specialist's opinion, all the requirements inherent in an expert's opinion must be followed, then the question arises of the feasibility of obtaining such an opinion, instead of evaluating the evidence in a method proven by practice, namely, conducting a forensic medical examination. \"Expert's opinion\", \"Specialist's opinion\", \"Consultation\" cannot correspond to an expert's opinion according to the following criteria: the qualification requirements for persons with special knowledge are different, and the qualification requirements for a specialist at the regulatory level are not defined at all. It is expedient to amend Article 102 of the Criminal Procedure Code of Ukraine on the procedure for warning an expert about responsibility for a knowingly false conclusion and refusal without valid reasons to perform the duties assigned to him in the case of providing the conclusions of an expert study, on a contractual basis. Article 243 of the Criminal Procedure Code of Ukraine should be supplemented with paragraph 71 of the following content: \"A copy of the agreement with the expert institution on conducting the examination, a copy of the receipt for payment of the appointed examination shall be attached to the decision of the investigating judge on the commission of the examination. In Article 71 \"Basics of the legislation of Ukraine on health care\" it is necessary to introduce a provision on the possibility of conducting a forensic medical examination at the request of the defense party or the victim.We consider it expedient to: 1) create in higher education institutions (medical universities) advisory groups of scientific and pedagogical workers (docents, professors), 2) have them undergo thematic improvement cycles in medical jurisprudence and the basics of forensic medicine.","PeriodicalId":418898,"journal":{"name":"Forensic-medical examination","volume":"16 4","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-02-28","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Forensic-medical examination","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.24061/2707-8728.2.2023.1","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 article presents topical issues related to the appointment of forensic medical examinations and research at the request of the defense in criminal proceedings, as well as procedural features of the participation of specialists in expert work at the pre-trial investigation stage. Similarities and differences of subjects using special knowledge, namely specialist and expert, were studied. Ways to improve the participation of specialists in the pre-trial process are proposed. Aim of the work. The purpose of the work is to determine the differences between the "Specialist's Opinion" and the "Expert Research Conclusion" in cases of forensic medical examinations on a contractual basis. Results. It was established that "Expert's opinion", "Specialist's opinion", "Consultation" cannot correspond to the expert's opinion according to the following criteria: the qualification requirements for persons with special knowledge are different, and the qualification requirements for a specialist at the regulatory level are not defined at all. Similarities and differences of subjects using special knowledge, namely specialist and expert, were studied. Ways to improve the participation of specialists in the pre-trial process are proposed. Conclusions. If, in order to obtain a specialist's opinion, all the requirements inherent in an expert's opinion must be followed, then the question arises of the feasibility of obtaining such an opinion, instead of evaluating the evidence in a method proven by practice, namely, conducting a forensic medical examination. "Expert's opinion", "Specialist's opinion", "Consultation" cannot correspond to an expert's opinion according to the following criteria: the qualification requirements for persons with special knowledge are different, and the qualification requirements for a specialist at the regulatory level are not defined at all. It is expedient to amend Article 102 of the Criminal Procedure Code of Ukraine on the procedure for warning an expert about responsibility for a knowingly false conclusion and refusal without valid reasons to perform the duties assigned to him in the case of providing the conclusions of an expert study, on a contractual basis. Article 243 of the Criminal Procedure Code of Ukraine should be supplemented with paragraph 71 of the following content: "A copy of the agreement with the expert institution on conducting the examination, a copy of the receipt for payment of the appointed examination shall be attached to the decision of the investigating judge on the commission of the examination. In Article 71 "Basics of the legislation of Ukraine on health care" it is necessary to introduce a provision on the possibility of conducting a forensic medical examination at the request of the defense party or the victim.We consider it expedient to: 1) create in higher education institutions (medical universities) advisory groups of scientific and pedagogical workers (docents, professors), 2) have them undergo thematic improvement cycles in medical jurisprudence and the basics of forensic medicine.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
专家意见 "与 "专家研究意见 "之间的区别在根据合同进行法医检查的情况下,"专家意见 "与 "专家研究意见 "之间的区别
文章介绍了在刑事诉讼中应辩方要求指定法医检查和研究的相关热点问题,以及专家在审前调查阶段参与专家工作的程序特点。对使用特殊知识的主体(即专家和鉴定人)的异同进行了研究。提出了改进专家参与审前程序的方法。工作目的。这项工作的目的是确定 "专家意见 "和 "专家研究结论 "在合同法医检查案件中的区别。结果。根据以下标准确定了 "专家意见"、"专科医生意见"、"咨询意见 "不能与专家意见相对应:对具有特殊知识的人员的资格要求不同,在监管层面对专科医生的资格要求根本没有规定。研究了使用特殊知识的主体(即专家和专 家)的异同。提出了改进专家参与预审程序的方法。结论。如果为了获得专家意见,必须遵循专家意见的所有固有要求,那么就会产生获得专家意见的可行性问题,而不是用实践证明有效的方法(即进行法医检查)来评估证据。根据以下标准,"专家意见"、"专家意见"、"咨询意见 "不能与专家意见相对应:对具 有专门知识的人的资格要求不同,而在监管层面对专家的资格要求根本没有规定。乌克兰刑事诉讼法》第 243 条应补充以下内容的第 71 款:乌克兰刑事诉讼法典》第 243 条应补充以下内容的第 71 款:"在预审法官关于委托审查的决定中应附有与专家机构签订的审查协议副本和指定审查费用收据副本。在第 71 条 "乌克兰卫生保健立法基础 "中,有必要引入关于应被告方或受害者要求进行法医检查的可能性的规定:1) 在高等院校(医科大学)设立科学和教学工作者(博士、教授)咨询小组,2) 让他们接受医学法学和法医学基础知识的专题提高周期。
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 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
MULTI-PARAMETER MUELLER-MATRIX TOMOGRAPHY OF HISTOLOGICAL SAMPLES OF BIOLOGICAL TISSUES AS AN ACCURATE AND EFFECTIVE METHOD FOR DETERMINING THE DEGREE OF BLOOD LOSS ANALYSIS OF PHENOTYPES OF THE AB0 BLOOD GROUP SYSTEM AMONG PERSONS SUSPECTED OF COMMITTING SEX CRIMES IN THE KHMELNYTSK REGION CAUSE AND EFFECT RELATIONSHIP OF BLOOD LOSS AND CAUSE OF DEATH IN INJURIES AND DISESSES DISADVANTAGES OF EXPERT RESEARCH STRANGULATION FURROW TIME PATTERNS OF RECEIVING DAMAGE AS A RESULT OF A TRAFFIC ACCIDENT
×
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
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 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 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1