Chowaniec Czesław, Chowaniec Małgorzata, Nowak Agnieszka
Katedra i Zakład Medycyny Sadowej SAM w Katowicach.
Arch Med Sadowej Kryminol. 2005 Oct-Dec;55(4):257-60.
From the practice of the Forensic Medicine Department, Medical University of Silesia, Katowice it appears that in criminal cases the level of medico-legal opinions provided by experts appointed by the district court or 'ad hoc' is very low. The analysis of the chosen files shoved a divergence of opinions given to the adopted motions as well as numerous offences to regulations in the nature of a consultative error. In the paper the authors have made an attempt to appraise causes of the above mentioned problems such as: 1. the lack of medico-legal knowledge and experience in court experts. 2. excessive ease of registration to the panel of court experts and the lack of processes which verify the qualifications of experts. 3. the lack of judicial control over expert's opinions and common acceptance of their work. 4. ignorance of the obligatory penal law. 5. ignorance of the basic rules for giving medico-legal opinions (legal consequences, casual nexus). 6. excessive but groundless self-confidence in experts. 7. the lack of a correct way of thinking and conclusion making. The aim of the paper was to pay close attention to the absolute need of verification of court experts' qualifications and work.
从卡托维兹西里西亚医科大学法医学系的实践来看,在刑事案件中,由地方法院指定或“特别”指定的专家所提供的法医学意见水平非常低。对所选档案的分析显示,针对所采纳动议给出的意见存在分歧,并且在咨询错误的性质方面存在众多违反规定的情况。在本文中,作者试图评估上述问题的成因,例如:1. 法庭专家缺乏法医学知识和经验。2. 法庭专家小组的注册过于容易,且缺乏对专家资质的核实程序。3. 对专家意见缺乏司法控制以及对其工作的普遍认可。4. 对强制性刑法的无知。5. 对出具法医学意见的基本规则(法律后果、因果关系)的无知。6. 专家过度但毫无根据的自信。7. 缺乏正确的思维和结论得出方式。本文的目的是密切关注核实法庭专家资质和工作的绝对必要性。