两个证据《规定》适用效果的实证研究

发布时间：2018-07-05 13:37

本文选题：非法证据 + 排除　；参考：《西南政法大学》2012年硕士论文

【摘要】：本文是针对实务部门关于两个证据《规定》1尤其是《非法证据排除规定》的适用情况而写的。2010年两院三部联合制定并于同年7月1日实施两个证据《规定》，该《规定》的颁布和实施一定程度上弥补了我国相关法律中没有非法证据排除规则的空白，对规范侦查机关取证、保障犯罪嫌疑人、被告人的合法权益、防止刑讯逼供等行为起到了重要作用。但是瑕不掩瑜，两个证据《规定》在司法实践中也暴露出一些不成熟之处。笔者借在F市检察院实习之机，对两个证据《规定》在实务部门的实施进行了深入的实证考察。文章通过了解实务部门对两个证据《规定》的运作过程，发现其在司法实践中存在的不足，并分析其产生的原因，最后重点从实体方面和程序方面提出相应的完善措施。本文共分四部分，第一部分为导论，首先简要介绍两个证据《规定》的出台背景和意义；其次对该《规定》施行前及实施后我国实务部门的操作状况及相关基本理论进行了简单的论述；最后阐述了作者的写作思路及不足之处。第二部分是两个证据《规定》在实务部门的实证研究。论述侦查机关、检察机关以及审判机关对该《规定》的实施，主要是通过三个案例和八个表格展现司法实践中的具体运作状况。第三部分为该《规定》在司法实践中存在的不足，重点从实体方面和程序方面着手。实体方面主要表现：在排除范围上，较之前法律规定实质上是缩小了排除的范围；排除的主体过多；《规定》的一些细节没有细化，致使可操作性不强；证人证言的合法性无人核实及侦查人员不出庭；侦查机关与羁押场所的管理体制不合理；程序方面的缺陷主要表现在程序启动方式、裁判方式及证明标准。第四部分为完善两个证据《规定》的对策。主要是笔者针对第三部分反映出的不足从实体方面和程序方面提出相应的完善措施，以期望使两个证据《规定》在实务中更具操作性。笔者带着理论界关于《非法证据排除规定》的争议深入司法实践，以真实的工作实际为切入点，考察争议问题并对其进行分析，本文采用的数据、观察到的现象是完全来自实践部门的第一手材料，对问题的思考和分析及结论亦基于此，亲历性强，更具说服力。笔者结合两个证据《规定》尤其是《非法证据排除规定》在司法实践中的所反映出问题，并在学界既有的研究基础上提出了一些让两个证据《规定》更具操作性的建议。但是本文也有不足之处，，笔者由于习法时间较短，理论功底不深，只有在学界既有的研究基础上去考察两个两个证据《规定》的适用效果，理论创新不是很突出，并且考察范围仅限于F市，所以并不能完全反映全国的适用效果。
[Abstract]:This article is written in response to the application of the two evidence < regulations > 1, especially the illegal evidence exclusion provisions, by the substantive departments. In 2010, the three chambers jointly formulated and implemented the two evidence < regulations] on 1 July of the same year. To a certain extent, the promulgation and implementation of the regulations have filled the gap in the rule of exclusion of illegal evidence in the relevant laws of our country. It plays an important role in standardizing the evidence collection of investigation organs, protecting the legitimate rights and interests of criminal suspects and defendants, and preventing the extortion of confessions by torture. However, the two evidences also reveal some immaturity in judicial practice. Taking the opportunity of practice in F City Procuratorate, the author makes a deep empirical investigation on the implementation of two evidences in practical departments. Through understanding the operation process of the two evidences in the practical department, this paper finds out their shortcomings in the judicial practice, analyzes the reasons for their emergence, and finally puts forward the corresponding consummation measures from the substantive and procedural aspects. This article is divided into four parts, the first part is the introduction, first briefly introduces the background and significance of the introduction of the two evidences. Secondly, the paper briefly discusses the operation status and related basic theories of the practical departments before and after the implementation of the regulations, and finally expounds the author's writing ideas and shortcomings. The second part is the empirical study of two evidences in the practice department. This paper discusses the implementation of this stipulation by investigating organs, procuratorial organs and judicial organs, mainly through three cases and eight tables to show the concrete operation status in judicial practice. The third part is the deficiency in the judicial practice, focusing on the substantive and procedural aspects. The main performance of the entity: in the scope of exclusion, compared with the previous legal provisions is essentially to narrow the scope of exclusion, the exclusion of too many subjects, the provisions of some of the details have not been refined, resulting in a lack of maneuverability; The legitimacy of witness testimony is not verified and investigators do not appear in court; the management system of investigation organs and places of detention is unreasonable; the defects of procedure are mainly manifested in the way of procedure initiation, the way of adjudication and the standard of proof. The fourth part is the countermeasure of perfecting the two evidences. The author mainly aims at the deficiency reflected in the third part and puts forward the corresponding perfect measures from the aspect of substance and procedure in order to make the two evidences more operable in practice. The author takes the dispute of "exclusion of illegal evidence" into judicial practice, taking the real work reality as the breakthrough point, investigates the dispute and analyzes it, the data used in this paper, The observed phenomenon comes from the firsthand materials of the practice department, and the thinking, analysis and conclusion of the problem are based on this, which has strong experience and is more persuasive. The author combines the two evidences, especially the exclusion of illegal evidence, which reflects the problems in the judicial practice, and puts forward some suggestions to make the two evidences more operable on the basis of the existing research in the academic circles. But this article also has the deficiency, the author because the study method time is short, the theory foundation is not deep, only in the academic circles existing research foundation to examine two evidence "stipulation" the application effect, the theory innovation is not very prominent, And the scope of investigation is limited to F city, so it can not completely reflect the applicable effect of the whole country.
【学位授予单位】：西南政法大学
【学位级别】：硕士
【学位授予年份】：2012
【分类号】：D925.13;D926

【参考文献】