Суб’єктивізм експерта у кримінальному провадженні

Abstract

Висвітлено поняття суб’єктивізму експерта, залученого для проведення судової експертизи у кримінальному провадженні; розглянуто вплив суб’єктивізму на хід та результати розслідування. Авторка звертає увагу на закордонний досвід критичної оцінки висновків експерта. Показовими у цьому контексті є справа Б. Мейфілда та експериментальні дослідження польських колег. Особливої уваги заслуговують запропоновані шляхи мінімізації суб’єктивізму у діяльності експерта. The forensic expert applies special technique, methodology and knowledge during the process of preparing an opinion in criminal proceedings. These tools are not available to the investigator, prosecutor, juror, judge. As a result, law enforcement agencies often estimate the expert’s conclusion as the main source of evidence. But there are many operations in expert activity when technology is not decisive. The subjective expert’s assessment of the objects of the research sometimes becomes the most valuable thing in this process. Subjectivism can be the cause of alternative views on the same problem. It can also complicate the adoption of proper procedural decisions. Although it is impossible to avoid expert’s subjectivity at all, it is advisable to discuss the mechanism of the reducing its impact. The purpose of the article is to study subjectivity in forensic expert’s work, to describe its impact on criminal proceedings in Ukrainian and foreign judicial practice, and to determine the prospects for overcoming it. It is proposed to consider under the concept of «expert’s subjectivism» the expert›s assessment of objects, facts, phenomena on the basis of expert’s own knowledge, life experience, professional experience, personal thoughts, qualifcations. An expert›s subjectivism may influence the choice of objects for research; choice of research methodology; choice of technical tools; interpretation of obtained results of research; description of the course and results of the study; formulating answers to questions. The case of B. Mayfeld is indicative in this context. The expert›s opinion is an important and indispensable source of evidence in criminal proceedings. It is possible to reduce subjectivism by introducing innovative technologies into expert work, developing unifed standards and research methods for each feld of forensic examination, motivating experts to verify their qualifcations through the self-control tests.