The Value Connotation of Evidence Evaluation on Forensic Conclusions

— Forensic appraisal is inherently uncertain, and the evidence used to determine the facts of a case must be certain. This creates a tension between the uncertainty contained in forensic appraisal itself and the certainty as evidence, and makes technical authority and legal authority confused in confirming the facts of the case. The forensic conclusions can only be used as evidence after it has been evaluated .Evidence evaluation on forensic conclusions should adhere to the goals of science and truth, and comply with the value of justice and efficiency, to ensure the scientific nature of forensic conclusions, and realize judicial justice.


INTRODUCTION
With the continuous improvement of the level of rule of law，the way the public resolve disputes through litigation in accordance with the law is more and more popular. The main basis for the court to confirm the facts of the case and resolve disputes is evidence. Forensic conclusions, a form of evidence that introduces science into litigation procedures to resolve disputes, make judgments which have no definite and unified standards can be tested and repeatedly practiced by using natural scientific methods [1].
This makes the role of forensic conclusions in litigation more and more critical. In judicial practice, unjust, false, and wrong cases caused by forensic conclusions without evidential ability have occurred frequently. The applicability of forensic conclusions in litigation is increasingly being questioned. This will not only affect judicial justice and the maintenance of the legitimate rights and interests of the masses, but also seriously damage judicial authority and is not conducive to promoting social harmony and stability. Accordingly, in order to ensure that the forensic conclusions entered into the litigation process have evidence capability and probative force , the identification of specialized issues in the case is based on objective and reliable scientific evidence to ensure that the people can feel fairness and justice in every judicial case. It is necessary to conduct a scientific, objective, and fair evidence evaluation of the forensic conclusions, to ensure the correctness of the forensic conclusions and prevent pseudo-science from entering the litigation.

II. THE VALUE GOAL OF SCIENCE AND TRUTH
The purpose of establishing the forensic appraisal system is to improve the judge's ability to ascertain the facts of the case, and to make up for the lack of professional knowledge through the activities of the appraiser, so as to obtain a more of forensic conclusions are primarily to examine the legality of the forensic conclusions, that is, to verify whether the production and formation of the forensic conclusions comply with legal procedures. If the forensic conclusion is not legal, the judge will deny the evidence qualification of the forensic conclusion and no longer consider reviewing its scientific. Legitimacy is the prerequisite for the development of forensic appraisal activities, and science is the basis of forensic appraisal. The forensic appraisal system must be able to guarantee its scientific of realization [2].Therefore forensic conclusions can be used as evidence to be legal and scientific.
Forensic appraisal usually has three possible results: one is a definitive conclusion; the other is an uncertain conclusion or multiple possible conclusions; and the third is the inability to draw a conclusive conclusion [3]. In litigation, all materials that can be used to prove the facts of the case, but the law requires that the proof materials should have legality, relevance, authenticity and certainty, and "ambiguity", "indeterminate" or "paradoxical" proof materials should not be used as evidence, and forensic conclusions is no exception. For the "deterministic conclusion" of forensic appraisal, because it meets the evidence standard stipulated by law, the referee can directly choose it as the evidence, and the "unable to draw a conclusive conclusion" does not include the scope of evidence. The "uncertainty conclusions" of forensic appraisal are manifested as tendencies. From the outside, they do not meet the evidence standards stipulated by the law. There is considerable controversy about using them as the basis for verdicts, but it also has a certain degree of scientific.
Science and technology have errors, and the results are not absolutely accurate. In the practice of forensic appraisal, although the appraiser has issued a "certainty" conclusion, it is only a formal "certainty", not "absolute certainty" still has probabilistic conclusions, which is determined by the nature of science itself. The "uncertainty" of forensic conclusion comes from science itself, is a scientific understanding that tends towards correctness with a high probability.
Whether the "uncertainty conclusion" of forensic appraisal can be used as evidence not only depends on the scientific and legitimacy of the forensic appraisal itself, but also affected by the scientific degree of the evidence standard setting which related to the proof of objective facts.
The objective reality is the fact that things originally exist.
Since the facts of the case dispute itself are not permanent and existing, but are lost due to the passage of time and never return, the objective facts cannot be reproduced truthfully, even if the audio and video are played again, they are not the original truth. If "objective truth" is used as the proof standard in litigation, it appears that the proof requirements are too harsh, and it is even suspected of violating the laws of nature. In litigation, the referee cannot reproduce the "objective facts" as they are in the court, but they can restore the authenticity of the facts of the case through investigation and collection of evidence, which conforms to the requirements of modern science and reaches the level of scientific, reasonable and reliable.
Therefore, the "standard of evidence" stipulated by the law needs to be based on the requirements of the essence of science, reflect the nature of science, and conform to the spirit of science.

III. THE PRACTICAL VALUE OF JUSTICE AND EFFICIENCY
Facing a competitive environment that tends to be market-oriented, the development of appraisal agencies Therefore, re-appraisal should avoid abuse. Unnecessary or unreasonable re-appraisal will have negative effects such as chaos in the appraisal order, reduced litigation efficiency, and increased litigation costs.
In practice, there is indeed a phenomenon in which judges rely on forensic conclusion to cause judgment errors. not subjective speculation, speculation or inference, the law of experience has the commonality in the common sense, easy to judge, but also the objective performance of the evidence; It is required to adopt a comprehensive judgment method for the final determination of the magnitude of evidence force, and must be combined with the whole case rather than determine separately. In this case, the judge's discretional evaluation of evidence of the forensic conclusions should be reasonable and scientific.

RATIONALITY AND NORMS
The ordinary way of cross-examination by judges to review and cross-examine the forensic conclusions cannot achieve a scientific and objective evaluation of its proving power. In addition, the attendance rate of appraisers is low, which puts the forensic conclusions in an embarrassing situation. Forensic conclusions not only failed to become an effective means for judges to ascertain facts, but instead became a fuse that exacerbated the conflicts between the litigants. From a normative point of view, since the forensic appraisal standards and other related systems are formulated by functional departments, and there is a phenomenon of cross-management by multiple departments, the forensic appraisal standards, technical specifications, and procedures cannot be unified, and the quality of the forensic conclusion is questioned. This is also one of the important reasons why people entrust different appraisal agencies to repeatedly appraise the same appraisal item. In the final analysis, they are all due to the lack of a unified forensic conclusion evaluation system [5]. The evaluation effect of the forensic conclusion has been criticized, and it cannot be able to improve and maintain its credibility inevitably. In order to ensure that judges make a fair judgment on the forensic conclusions, the establishment of a unified forensic conclusion evaluation system should be put on the agenda as soon as possible.
The evaluation of forensic conclusions is mainly reflected in the system of appraisers' appearance in court and the cross-examination process [6]. cross-examination lies in examination. Improving the system of appraisers' appearance in court will help improve the legitimacy of the cross-examination procedure [7].
Therefore, by improving the system of appraisers' appearance in court, giving full play to the commanding role of judges in court trials, ensuring the smooth progress of court cross-examination, so as to conduct objective evidence evaluation of forensic appraisal.

V. CONCLUSION
The forensic conclusions must be cross-examined and evaluated in order to be used as evidence in litigation.
Scientific is the essential attribute of forensic, not only the basis of forensic conclusions as evidence, but also the prerequisite for the litigation to use the forensic conclusions