Forensic dentistry

Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6

On the law of the possible disqualification of an expert, particularly if the doctor is a party or a relative of one of the parties forensic investigation process (article 59 of the code of criminal procedure of the RSFSR and similar articles of the CPC Union republics) or it is a service based on them (article 67 of the code of criminal procedure of the RSFSR and similar articles of Union republics). From expert dentist must stop and in case of consideration of a question on correctness of treatment, if he had any patient.
In procedural fundamentals of forensic dental examination poorly studied questions of the competence of a forensic expert.
When performing the examination, the dentist should be guided by the provision of the law that "the issues laid upon the expert and his conclusions cannot go outside the limits of special knowledge expert" (article 78 of the code of criminal procedure of the RSFSR and similar articles of the CPC Union republics). In the code of criminal procedure Czechoslovakia 1960 (section 107, p. I) following the same indication has explained: "expert should not evaluate the evidence and decide legal questions." The CPC Mali 1962 (article 143) States that the examination is appointed in those cases, when the investigator or the court has to solve the issues that go beyond legal knowledge". Thus, a forensic expert, regardless of whether his duties full-time expert or dentist should refuse to answer questions beyond his medical knowledge, and in the expert opinion not be included in the resolution of legal issues.
Here are some examples.
One of the criteria of the severity of injuries is a lasting disfigurement of the face. The task of an expert is in these cases the establishment of izsludinati damage, i.e. such a state of scars when they shrink, fade, become inconspicuous. Such an outcome should take place either by itself or under the influence of therapeutic or physiotherapeutic treatment measures (surgical procedure in these cases is ignored, for it is connected with additional physical suffering). The question about the disfigurement of the face - not medical, aesthetic, and the competence of the judicial investigative bodies.
Another VIII Pirogov's Congress in 1902, during the discussion of the thesis, Imperial Bilgi, has acted with the report "Teeth in forensic against", the view was expressed that the dentures, even in the best technical performance, cannot replace lost due to injury teeth. On this basis the conclusion is drawn, an injury resulting in the loss of teeth, should be considered as a disfigurement of the face. Not stopping on modern expert evaluation of dental injuries, note that the above judgment has no medical criteria in the Annex to the expert practice is beyond the competence of a forensic expert.
In this connection it is impossible to recognize a good recommendation M. I. Avdeeva on recognition as disfiguring the face of outcomes damage that in the form of examples lead author for lawyers. Here and injuries such as "scar curvature of the lips with a gaping slit of a mouth, by eversion of the lips, revealing teeth..., fractures of the jaw, accompanied by their deformation", etc. And although the author emphasizes that the medical examiner cannot and should not determine the disfigurement of the face, his examples are given only for the employees of the bodies of investigation and court (but not for forensic experts), it is obvious that any medical criteria for substantiation of malformation is not available and the opinion of M. I. Avdeeva on the pages of scientific-practical forensic medical guide goes beyond the competence of the expert.
Takes a similar position N. The point of Perlina, when the loss of teeth as a result of injury as a forensic expert criterion considers the changing appearance of the person as a result of zapadenia mouth, why a person gets old.
Some authors believe that in self-defense prevail damage caused by the teeth on the upper limbs, while in attack action of the teeth are exposed and other parts of the body (that is, 3. Bronstein). This judgment is wrong on the merits, since the frequency of damage to teeth on the upper extremities both in attack and in defense is the same, due to which this characteristic cannot be self-sufficient value. More significant is the fact that the decision of this issue shall be the competence of the judicial and investigative bodies, while the forensic medical expert in these cases, you need only to establish whether the injury is the result of self-harm or not.