Комиссарова Я.В. О специфике профессионального становления эксперта

Аннотация: By adjusting the order of integration of people with expertise in litigation, as well as the use of the results of their work during the investigation, consideration and resolution of criminal cases, criminal procedure law (designed to achieve the goals that lead to the need for the criminal procedure law) does not regulate the activities of the expert in the study and draw conclusions from the study. At the same time, and criminal procedure and other branches of law, contain provisions that provide the opportunity and conditions for the production of certain actions, called “expertise,” uniformly determine its nature: regardless of the type used by special knowledge and variety of applications, examination of how work on the study of a particular object carried out by expert in order to obtain information of interest to the initiator of production involves the study and giving opinion on the request authorized by the agency, entity or person. The foregoing suggests that we are dealing with an independent social phenomenon. Public relations, arising from the need for some people to get interested in them information on issues whose resolution requires the use of knowledge, which they themselves (or at all to the necessary extent) do not possess and the possibility of other to grant such information on the results of the research. Since the judicial review could be requested to any person possessing special knowledge, we must recognize that the components of forensic work are equally as the work of government and non-expert agencies and the activities of persons designated by the experts from among those in their facilities is not working. Study of domestic legislation (criminal procedure, in the first place) shows that the production of examinations by any person designated by an expert in labor law is perceived as a payable. However, postulating that an expert can only be one who has the special knowledge, criminal procedure law, by virtue of their nature, considering the expert solely as a subject of criminal procedure, legal, granting the appropriate rights and responsibilities, the fact that his procedural functions are derived from the professional, proper attention is not paid – the question of how individuals appointed experts acquire “expertise” in demand in the proceedings, and to what degree at the time of their own, remains out of sight of the legislator. Meanwhile, an expert in the new millennium in 99% of cases – a professional who has chosen this type of activity motivation, as appropriate to his personal interests and preferences. The expert – a subjective, occasionally "distraction from normal activities (including studying the problems of “big science”) the will of officials bearing the burden of proof on the wane. Today, therefore, issues related to improving the training of forensic experts in dire need of adequate modern legal realities of the settlement.

Ключевые слова:

Abstract: By adjusting the order of integration of people with expertise in litigation, as well as the use of the results of their work during the investigation, consideration and resolution of criminal cases, criminal procedure law (designed to achieve the goals that lead to the need for the criminal procedure law) does not regulate the activities of the expert in the study and draw conclusions from the study. At the same time, and criminal procedure and other branches of law, contain provisions that provide the opportunity and conditions for the production of certain actions, called “expertise,” uniformly determine its nature: regardless of the type used by special knowledge and variety of applications, examination of how work on the study of a particular object carried out by expert in order to obtain information of interest to the initiator of production involves the study and giving opinion on the request authorized by the agency, entity or person. The foregoing suggests that we are dealing with an independent social phenomenon. Public relations, arising from the need for some people to get interested in them information on issues whose resolution requires the use of knowledge, which they themselves (or at all to the necessary extent) do not possess and the possibility of other to grant such information on the results of the research. Since the judicial review could be requested to any person possessing special knowledge, we must recognize that the components of forensic work are equally as the work of government and non-expert agencies and the activities of persons designated by the experts from among those in their facilities is not working. Study of domestic legislation (criminal procedure, in the first place) shows that the production of examinations by any person designated by an expert in labor law is perceived as a payable. However, postulating that an expert can only be one who has the special knowledge, criminal procedure law, by virtue of their nature, considering the expert solely as a subject of criminal procedure, legal, granting the appropriate rights and responsibilities, the fact that his procedural functions are derived from the professional, proper attention is not paid – the question of how individuals appointed experts acquire “expertise” in demand in the proceedings, and to what degree at the time of their own, remains out of sight of the legislator. Meanwhile, an expert in the new millennium in 99% of cases – a professional who has chosen this type of activity motivation, as appropriate to his personal interests and preferences. The expert – a subjective, occasionally "distraction from normal activities (including studying the problems of “big science”) the will of officials bearing the burden of proof on the wane. Today, therefore, issues related to improving the training of forensic experts in dire need of adequate modern legal realities of the settlement.

Keywords: