刑事被告人质证权的实现机理

发布时间：2018-01-25 00:55

本文关键词： 质证权基本权利理论基础完善机制　出处：《南京师范大学》2014年硕士论文　论文类型：学位论文

【摘要】：质证权是国家宪法和国际人权公约规定的刑事被告人在刑事诉讼中享有的程序基本权,也是刑事被告人获得公正审判的最低限度的标准。质证权作为保障刑事被告人获得公正审判的基本权利,虽然起源于英国,但是却因其具有超法系和诉讼结构的普适价值,在世界范围内得到了普遍的承认,美国联邦最高法院及欧洲人权法院对保障刑事被告人质证权的享有做出了巨大的贡献,并对世界各国刑事诉讼产生了积极影响。作为一种程序性的基本权利,质证权起到了保障刑事被告人基本权利、实现控辩平衡、和发现真实的多元作用,但是发现真实仅仅是质证权的次要价值,即工具性价值,其核心价值在于保障刑事被告人的基本权利,实现公正审判,因此不能过分夸大质证权发现真实的次要价值。质证权的基础理论来源于宪政理论中的维护人的尊严理论以及程序主体理论、实现控辩平衡及正当程序的程序正义理论。质证权具有自身独立的理论基础、价值、作用等,质证权也就有别于辩护权、交叉询问权,是一项独立的宪法权利。在中国,证人不出庭作证成为刑事审判的常态,在侦查阶段取得的证人证言经过公诉人有选择性地宣读后可以直接作为定案的依据,这也成为冤假错案滋生的重要原因,这与宪法及刑事诉讼法规定的保障人权的要求相背离。这主要是因为我国宪法对保障刑事被告人基本权利的程序性基本权利的缺失。在人权保障入宪,并成为刑事诉讼根本任务的改革背景下,确认保障刑事被告人基本权利的程序性基本权利也就成为改革的关键所在。质证权能够推动刑事司法公正的实现,因此质证权的确认也就具有了内在的必要性。清末民初以来的立法及司法实践,美国联邦最高法院以及欧洲人权法院关于质证权理论内涵的详细阐述以及制度保障实践,经济技术的发展等都为我国质证权的确认提供了有益的条件。因此,在反思国内现状、借鉴国外制度的基础上提出一些初步设想：以宪法确认为基础,为刑事诉讼法的修改明确上位法依据；并在司法实践中完善质证权的保障制度及程序,从宪政层面完善刑事司法体制,实现刑事司法的公正,实现人权保障的宪政目的。
[Abstract]:The right of cross-examination is the basic procedural right of the criminal defendants in criminal proceedings as stipulated in the national constitution and international human rights conventions. It is also the minimum standard for the criminal defendant to obtain a fair trial. The right of cross-examination is the basic right to guarantee the criminal defendant to obtain a fair trial, although it originated in Britain. However, because of its universal value of super-legal system and litigation structure, it has been universally recognized in the world. The United States Supreme Court and the European Court of Human Rights have made great contributions to the protection of the right to cross-examination of criminal defendants, and have had a positive impact on the criminal proceedings in various countries in the world. As a procedural fundamental right, the United States Court of Justice and the European Court of Human Rights have made great contributions. The right of cross-examination plays an important role in protecting the basic rights of the criminal defendant, realizing the balance between prosecution and defense, and discovering the truth, but finding the truth is only the secondary value of the right of cross-examination, that is, the instrumental value. Its core value lies in the protection of the basic rights of the criminal defendant and the realization of fair trial. The basic theory of cross-examination right comes from the theory of safeguarding human dignity and the theory of procedural subject in constitutional theory. The right of cross-examination has its own independent theoretical basis, value, function and so on. The right of cross-examination is different from the right of defense and the right of cross-examination. Is an independent constitutional right. In China, witness failure to testify in court has become the norm of criminal trial, and the witness testimony obtained in the investigation stage can be read out selectively by the public prosecutor, which can be used as the basis for the determination of the case directly. This has also become an important reason for the breeding of false and wrong cases. This deviates from the requirement of protecting human rights stipulated in the Constitution and the Criminal procedure Law. This is mainly due to the absence of the procedural fundamental rights of the criminal defendants in our Constitution and the constitutional protection of human rights. And become the fundamental task of the reform of the background of criminal proceedings, the recognition of the basic rights of criminal defendants to protect the basic procedural rights is also the key to reform. The right to cross-examination can promote the realization of criminal justice. Therefore, the confirmation of the right of cross-examination also has the inherent necessity. The legislative and judicial practice since the end of the Qing Dynasty and the beginning of the Republic of China. The United States Federal Supreme Court and the European Court of Human Rights on the theoretical connotation of the right to cross-examination, as well as the practice of institutional protection, economic and technological development have provided beneficial conditions for the confirmation of the right to cross-examination in China. On the basis of reflecting on the present domestic situation and drawing lessons from foreign systems, this paper puts forward some tentative ideas: on the basis of constitutional confirmation, we should make clear the basis of superior law for the revision of criminal procedure law; In judicial practice, we should perfect the guarantee system and procedure of the right of cross-examination, perfect the criminal justice system from the constitutional level, realize the justice of criminal justice and realize the constitutional aim of human rights guarantee.
【学位授予单位】：南京师范大学
【学位级别】：硕士
【学位授予年份】：2014
【分类号】：D921;D925.2

【参考文献】