中国古代证据制度及其理据研究
发布时间：2018-11-27 07:29
【摘要】： 证据之所以被称为“诉讼的无冕之王”,是因为它是司法审判的中心环节,无证据可能成为疑案、悬案或不能受理的案件,更为重要的是国家、被害人或利益诉求人的利益得不到实现。无论是古代的司法实践,还是现代的司法实践,乃至诉讼理论,无论是大陆法系还是英美法系的诉讼制度,其中心都在证据。人类在解决自身存在的各种矛盾和纠纷过程中,首先必须认定事实,而要认定事实,又必须和运用证据,并遵行一定的证据规则,由此形成一套解决各种矛盾、纠纷的制度和方法。笔者认为,在中国古代的司法实践中,司法官吏鞫狱断刑、解决纠纷,与现代法官审理案件、解决纠纷本质上并无二致,亦即必须有理有据,依证据断案,甚至要遵行一定的规则。本文试图进入中国古代司法官吏司法实践的场域,依托中国历代判例判牍等文献资料,探求中国古代司法官吏断案时证据的取得和采信方式,不同性质和类型的案件在适用相同的证据规则的同时,又存在怎样的差别。刑事证据规则“口供主义”的理据在于,代表国家利益的司法官吏,站在国家干涉主义立场上,视犯罪为大恶,追求犯罪者“口服”的司法结果。民事证据规则“券证主义”的理据在于,司法官吏站在当事人的立场上,奉行券证主义绝对的观念。对中国古代司法实践中形成的证据规则予以归纳并深入研究,对传承传统证据法文化意义深远。
[Abstract]:The reason why evidence is called "the uncrowned king of litigation" is that it is the central link of the judicial trial, and that the absence of evidence may become a doubtful case, a pending case or a case that cannot be accepted, and more importantly, the state. The interests of victims or interest claimants are not realized. No matter the ancient judicial practice, the modern judicial practice, and even the litigation theory, whether in the civil law system or the common law system, the heart is in the evidence. In the process of resolving all kinds of contradictions and disputes existing in human beings, we must first identify the facts, and in order to determine the facts, we must use and apply the evidence, and abide by certain rules of evidence, thus forming a set of solutions to all kinds of contradictions. System and method of dispute The author believes that in the ancient Chinese judicial practice, the judicial officials decided the sentence in prison, resolved the dispute, and solved the case in the same way as the modern judge, that is to say, it must be justified and decided according to the evidence. Even follow certain rules. This article attempts to enter the field of judicial practice of ancient Chinese judicial officials, relying on the documents such as the judicial precedent slips of the past dynasties in China, to explore the way of obtaining and adopting the evidence when the judicial officials in ancient China decide cases. At the same time, different types of cases apply the same rules of evidence. The argument of "confession doctrine" in the rules of criminal evidence lies in that the judicial officials who represent the national interests stand on the stand of the state interventionism, regard crime as the great evil, and pursue the judicial result of the offender "taking orally". The civil evidence rule "evidence doctrine" is justified by the fact that the judicial officials stand on the position of the parties and pursue the absolute concept of voucher doctrine. It is of great significance to inherit the culture of traditional evidence law to sum up and study the rules of evidence formed in ancient Chinese judicial practice.
【学位授予单位】：吉林大学
【学位级别】：博士
【学位授予年份】：2009
【分类号】：D929;D925
本文编号：2359870
[Abstract]:The reason why evidence is called "the uncrowned king of litigation" is that it is the central link of the judicial trial, and that the absence of evidence may become a doubtful case, a pending case or a case that cannot be accepted, and more importantly, the state. The interests of victims or interest claimants are not realized. No matter the ancient judicial practice, the modern judicial practice, and even the litigation theory, whether in the civil law system or the common law system, the heart is in the evidence. In the process of resolving all kinds of contradictions and disputes existing in human beings, we must first identify the facts, and in order to determine the facts, we must use and apply the evidence, and abide by certain rules of evidence, thus forming a set of solutions to all kinds of contradictions. System and method of dispute The author believes that in the ancient Chinese judicial practice, the judicial officials decided the sentence in prison, resolved the dispute, and solved the case in the same way as the modern judge, that is to say, it must be justified and decided according to the evidence. Even follow certain rules. This article attempts to enter the field of judicial practice of ancient Chinese judicial officials, relying on the documents such as the judicial precedent slips of the past dynasties in China, to explore the way of obtaining and adopting the evidence when the judicial officials in ancient China decide cases. At the same time, different types of cases apply the same rules of evidence. The argument of "confession doctrine" in the rules of criminal evidence lies in that the judicial officials who represent the national interests stand on the stand of the state interventionism, regard crime as the great evil, and pursue the judicial result of the offender "taking orally". The civil evidence rule "evidence doctrine" is justified by the fact that the judicial officials stand on the position of the parties and pursue the absolute concept of voucher doctrine. It is of great significance to inherit the culture of traditional evidence law to sum up and study the rules of evidence formed in ancient Chinese judicial practice.
【学位授予单位】：吉林大学
【学位级别】：博士
【学位授予年份】：2009
【分类号】：D929;D925
【引证文献】
相关博士学位论文 前2条
1 郑牧民;中国传统证据文化研究[D];湘潭大学;2010年
2 尚华;论质证[D];中国政法大学;2011年
相关硕士学位论文 前3条
1 张昀珠;官、民与法：明代社会司法实践研究[D];广西师范大学;2012年
2 姜洋;汉代诉讼证据制度研究[D];鲁东大学;2012年
3 梁艳;试论宋代书证制度及书证在司法中的运用[D];苏州大学;2012年
，本文编号：2359870
本文链接：https://www.wllwen.com/falvlunwen/fashilw/2359870.html
