Independent experts - help or harm

[Воронеж]

The argument is about nothing. It’s the same as militiamen discuss private detectives))) They have the same logic.
In each case, there is a specific example. Different experts are needed - both dependent and independent. And detectives are needed different - in the system, and outside of it. We are a tool that they use to achieve results (each client has his own result). It all depends on the quality of the tool and the ability to use it

 

[ДНК]

I will be happy to use independent experts .... if there are contacts in Novosibirsk or the nearest cities (Barnaul, Tomsk, Kemerovo) - discard, I will definitely communicate ...

 

[Anonymous]

How to address issues requiring specialized knowledge in various fields science, technology, arts, crafts It is clear to me that it is connected with a "strictly scientific basis", but why a state expert possesses this knowledge, and a non-state a priori is deprived of this knowledge - I do not understand. For example, I studied at the same educational institution with my acquaintance - now an expert-phonoscopist FSKN. We received the same education. A strictly scientific basis was present. Examinations are done in accordance with the higher education. The only difference is that he is state, and I am not.
So the conclusion that a cockroach cannot hear without legs seems dubious to me)
And the involvement of specialists engaged in private practice in the lawsuit, in my opinion, allows you to "renew the blood" in the system of forensic expert activity.

Sorry, but I can not agree with you.
The purpose of the examination is to determine in court proceedings that which is unknown or incomprehensible with the help of either a specialist or an expert in a particular field of knowledge. Therefore, examinations are not carried out in accordance with the higher education received, but on the basis of special expert studies, if the expert has the education relevant to the issue under consideration, the level of knowledge of the specialized, tested and approved by the FMSC, expert methods, the availability of appropriate tools established by these methods, the expert’s capabilities properly save research results, etc.
Today, for us, these factors of "independent" experts are absent in most cases, as well as there is no proper state control over their activities. Accordingly, there are no guarantees to the participants in the trial about the accuracy of the expert opinion. The warning of criminal liability in this case is only declarative in nature, since the person who conducted the “expert study” and issued the “expert opinion” does not have the proper status, which will give grounds for bringing this “expert” to criminal liability.
As a result, from the majority of "independent examinations" it smacks of gypsy and fortune-telling not coffee grounds. Which the court subsequently, to conceal its carelessness and carelessness, blames the party in the case, claiming that the examination and selection of an expert were appointed either with the consent or at the initiative of the party to the process. Although this is the prerogative of the court.
And the difference between a public and private expert lies precisely in the degree of responsibility. The state one always walks under the sword of Damocles with the onset of criminal liability, and such a sword does not hang over a private trader. Whoever understood this, he had long since put on the consumer-driven stream the carrying out of "expert studies" and chopped off money from suckers, and unscrupulous lawyers and lawyers often use this as well. And the court always explains this with acceptable (not prohibited by law) methods of proof. Then it follows that to achieve a goal, even if illegal, any methods and methods are good. But this excuse me vilely, since behind every judicial decision are human destinies. After that, rumors and opinions about the venality of judges, investigators, experts and other participants in the process are born. And now, against the background of general legal nihilism (unwillingness to know and respect the legislation of the country), this has already become a generally accepted norm. And I didn’t want you to become a part of this anarchy.

Decency and the desire to "receive money" by incompatible concepts.

This also applies to other types of activities, including private detective activities.

 

[Anonymous]

I will be happy to use independent experts .... if there are contacts in Novosibirsk or the nearest cities (Barnaul, Tomsk, Kemerovo) - discard, I will definitely communicate ...

You can find a list of "expert" organizations and experts in the Voluntary Certification (according to GOST) section on the website of the Russian Federal Center for Forensic Expertise of the Ministry of Justice of the Russian Federation. They took responsibility to maintain such a register.
And Dmitry Nikolayevich, if you are interested in independent experts, I recommend fortunetellers, psychics and other "scientific" workers. You yourself know what result: for your money - any whims. Only they will never review the conclusions of state experts, as well as their colleagues in the shop.

 

[Anonymous]

The argument is about nothing. It’s the same as militiamen discuss private detectives))) They have the same logic.
In each case, there is a specific example. Different experts are needed - both dependent and independent. And detectives are needed different - in the system, and outside of it. We are a tool that they use to achieve results (each client has his own result). It all depends on the quality of the tool and the ability to use it

Valentine, this is not an argument, but an attempt to show what an expert is and what he is eaten with. Among private experts, there are also, and many, decent and enthusiastic people. In the same way as in our activity with you. The most important thing is not to make a mistake in choosing ...

 

[ДНК]

Thank you, Andrey Vadimovich, I will definitely use your advice (and we also say that you need to remove the booth from the forum ....) by the way, I sometimes use fortunetellers and extrasense ... I do not refuse anything that can benefit the case, the investigation, the client. ...

 

[Детективное агентство ИКС-Инфо.]

Intelligence grapple? Interrresno ...

Is this a question on this topic or as usual rubbish for a quotation mark?

Andrew.
This is, as usual ... a question on this topic.
Yours faithfully

PS
By the way! Pin up is not your horse, in contrast to the "examination" ....
You talk reliably, with taste and knowledge of the topic .

 

[Детективное агентство Москва.]

I'll try and I first add oil to the fire, and then express my opinion.
I found it on the Internet:

On the need to monitor the activities of non-state experts

Recently, here and there, the question has been raised "on streamlining the actions of independent experts."
Moreover, this issue is not raised by independent experts themselves, but by government agencies, for example, the Russian Federal Center for Forensic Expertise, the Office of the Ministry of Justice of the Russian Federation for the Voronezh Region, and a number of state centers of expertise. What is the reason for such craving in "... organization of effective public control ..." over these NEs?
Where does the “problem” grow from? Indeed, the existing law on expert judicial activity does not require any form of “public control” over the activities of experts. Yes, and the existing Code of Criminal Procedure and Code of Civil Procedure, and the agro-industrial complex quite definitely indicate what criteria should and what rules should be followed by a forensic expert. Moreover, there is no division of experts into “state” and “non-state”. Every expert has the same rights and obligations.
So where does the desire of “state” experts, or rather their managers, come to control “non-state” experts? There are probably several reasons for this, as in any “muddy” business.

The first is that state expert structures have lost monopoly on the production of expertises. They are no longer “chosen”. This feeling is similar to spite for strangers like "Come here!" .

Secondly, the corporatism created by these structures for many years, in which it was “indecent" to convict a colleague of mistakes because “everyone studied with the same teachers,” was destroyed.

Third, the “customers” of expertise have an alternative in choosing experts. Previously, the principle of the “service area” was in effect, which allowed the state examination bodies to set their conditions to the “customer” both in terms of volume and terms of examination.

But all this is only a background of the comfort of the work of state expert institutions. Unusual, uncomfortable, somehow, you know. The more significant reason is that in the presence of “non-state” experts, a practice appeared when the conclusions of “state” experts began to be refuted by the conclusions of “non-state” in the courts, or in the process of the work of lawyers. The monopoly on “ultimate truth” is disappearing. The real picture in the field of expert activity of state institutions begins to appear. And the quality of expert activity in the GU directly depends (according to the law on expert activity) on the ability of its leadership to organize such activity. Which leader wants this?
But, although this is an important reason to organize "... effective public control ...", but not the most important.
As the classics say, "... look for whom it is beneficial ...". That's it - BENEFIT!

This is the most important thing that forces the leadership of state expert institutions to demand "... streamline and control ..." non-state experts.

The situation is as follows. Prior to the adoption of the law on expert activities and some time later (until 2007), state SEUs did part of the examinations for money. Moreover, all these funds coming from citizens, courts, organizations for the production of examinations and studies remained at the disposal of the management of these EMS. They distributed them as anyone allowed conscience, i.e. completely uncontrollable. It was at this moment that there was a sharp reduction in the types of traditional examinations, deterioration in their quality, and an increase in the number of types of assessments (which are not, in the real sense, examinations) with an increase in the staff of specialists of this profile. All the attention of the leaders of the SEU was directed to the development of precisely these types of activities.

This happened because the traditional types of expertise (ballistics, trasology, chemistry, CEMVI, etc.) were done free of charge (for investigation and criminal courts), but the assessment (vehicles, housing) brought decent money.

After the Ministry of Justice of the Russian Federation managed to get free money to pass by them, it was decided to send all the funds received in this way to the budget to the SEU. Almost immediately, the “money-raising” activity in all the SEUs was significantly reduced.

But ... the train is gone! Over the years, some of the forensic experts (who received their 14t.rub versus 40t.rub appraisers) either went to other structures or retired. They did not accept new workers for these “non-profitable” specialties, and all free staffing units were filled with specialists from “profitable” types of expertises.

These are the conditions of the Market - the direction that generates profit is developing. And vice versa.

Therefore, the structure of the SEU formed by the conditions of the Market under the new conditions of distribution of financial flows has become unable to cope with the flow of forensic expertise. And those examinations that previously brought good income, and for the production of which experts at the very least, but received a certain percentage of the cost of the examination, began to be performed much longer, because now experts are not interested in their soon implementation. The deadlines for the production of examinations became simply incommensurable with the deadlines set for conducting investigative actions or considering a case in court. The management of the SEU began to send letters “about the possibility of performing examinations no earlier than” of a period of sometimes up to two years, or messages about placing a decision on the queue for making examinations

All this caused a wave of complaints by the judicial investigating authorities about the "red tape of the SEU in terms of the production of examinations." Since no organizational way out of the situation was found, since any decision rested on a lack of qualified personnel, which was impossible to train within 1 - 2 years, the central authorities decided to shift the responsibility in solving this issue to ordinary SEUs. In 2009, additions were made to the codes on the liability of experts and heads of state economic control bodies for failure to fulfill the established deadlines for the production of examinations.

Here the gaze of state-owned SEUs turned to non-state SEUs: Why are they better than us ?! It turned out - better!

Firstly, it was impossible for a private expert to commission an examination without his consent. That is, the expert could choose in which examination he would be able to categorically answer the questions posed and in which not. Therefore, private experts with categorical conclusions will always have more expertise.

Secondly, the cost of the examination was determined by the expert himself, and not by the head of the SEU. Moreover, he could be sure that the cost of remuneration would depend only on his work, and not on the personal relationship of his leadership to him. The state economic control system adopted a system of material incentives for experts on the basis of the sovereign decision of the head. What this decision depends on is clear to everyone.

Thirdly, the duration of the examination was determined only by the interest of the expert in the speedy execution of the examination, and by some mythical “time standard for the production of the examination”.

Fourth, the performance of private experts was incomparably higher than the conclusions of experts from state-owned SEUs. For private experts, such a form of conclusions as NPS (is not possible) is fundamentally unacceptable, because such a conclusion “blocks” the road to other customers. Therefore, he has to "climb out of his skin", conducting a lot of research and digging through a mountain of literature in order to get at least some information that will help establish the truth. For experts of state SEU, the conclusion of the NIP is not associated either with their salary or with their career growth, and therefore is not something exceptional.

In addition, it turned out that the procedure for paying for examinations for non-state experts is much simpler and more accessible to all participants in this process than the regulated procedure for state examination. As an example, the Moscow government’s decision on the procedure for financing reimbursement of expenses associated with the appointment of experts at the expense of the regional budget:

"…4. The Department submits to the Ministry of Finance of the Moscow Region a register of expenses for each forensic examination, approved by the head of the Department, in the context of forensic institutions and (or) state forensic experts, indicating the amount of expenses for each forensic examination, with the following documents attached:

rulings of magistrates on the appointment of a forensic examination containing a list of issues put to the permission of the expert, as well as a claim for reimbursement of the costs of the examination at the expense of the regional budget through the Office;

agreements between the Office and forensic institutions or state forensic experts on the relevant expertise;

estimates for the conduct of forensic examinations, approved by the heads of forensic institutions or state forensic experts, agreed by the magistrates who appointed forensic examinations, and signed by representatives of the parties involved in legal proceedings;

acts of work performed, containing the actual costs of the examination of the positions reflected in the budget for the relevant judicial examination, approved by the heads of forensic institutions or state forensic experts, magistrates of the Moscow region who appointed the examination, the head of the Office and sealed with prints of the relevant expert institutions and Management;

letters of notification from the heads of forensic institutions or state forensic experts on the implementation of the examination;

bills from forensic institutions or state forensic experts who conducted the examination ... "

Those. in addition to the expert opinion, the expert institution must submit at least eight more documents, some of which must also be agreed upon! But the funniest thing is that there may not be money in the budget to pay for examinations! Put yourself in the place of the expert who is entrusted with such an examination, and answer the question: do you need it? But does the head of a state judicial institution need extra trouble if this money doesn’t get him anyway ?!

Then it’s not clear at all - Why do they want to control non-governmental judicial institutions and private experts? But this is from the point of view of a normal person. And from the point of view of the Moscow official - because it is FAVORABLE!

For the one who exercises control can always “control” in such a way that the controlled one will come running to the controller and bring “in the beak” what the state controller always lacks - “kids for the milk”! The author, to the extent of his depravity, does not see other reasons for the desire to “control”.

 

[Детективное агентство Москва.]

Helen, nice to see you on the forum.
Let's teach the “detectives” together how to work according to the conclusions of experts who are official and have the appropriate status, and “independent experts,” who are sometimes not even experts in this field.
Help the community recognize who is who.

Andrey, I’ll probably agree, but only with part of your statement.
I am also very pleased to see Elena on the forum!
Andrei, with regard to the training of “detectives” on how to work according to experts, I think that neither of us would like to learn, but only from real experts in a particular field.
In your statement, you already see the denial of independent expertise, which is why I’m not ready for you to fill this gap in my knowledge, since the information that you can convey to me will be deliberately biased.
I understand more clearly, closer and more interesting the position of Elena as a specialist in this matter.
For some reason, you always omit the moment that BH also works for money, and sometimes for a lot of money, and it can also “fall” for the customer and fulfill the task, even if it runs counter to accepted moral standards, and sometimes the law. For example, somewhere we have already discussed the topic of preparing an alibi.
My conclusion is this (I already said at the beginning of the topic): It’s all about specific individuals, with specific principles, in approaching one’s work as a PROFESSIONAL.

 

[Частный детектив. Владивосток.]

Applause turning into a standing ovation ...!