刑事电子证据可采性规则研究

发布时间：2018-02-09 05:36

本文关键词： 刑事诉讼电子证据真实性合法性　出处：《郑州大学》2015年硕士论文　论文类型：学位论文

【摘要】：在电子信息产业急速扩张的大背景下,网络和电子设备已经发展成为和社会生活息息相关的一部分。在法律领域,电子证据开始渐渐显露出其无可替代的证据能力,但是相比世界其他电子信息产业同样发达的国家,我国关于电子证据的立法还不够完备,不能很好地应对司法实践中出现的各类问题。早在2011年,时任全国人大常委会委员长吴邦国曾宣布中国特色社会主义法律体系已经形成,同时,也指出其本身并不是完美无缺的。就目前来看,中国特色社会主义法律体系的立法框架还需要一部完备的电子证据法甚至是证据法来填补,因此,无论从司法实践的当前需要还是我国法律体系完整构建的长远考虑,制定电子证据的可采性规则都迫在眉睫。本文所构想的电子证据可采性规则以关联性、真实性、合法性为主导,以非法证据排除规则和最佳证据规则为辅助的认定规则,其中,涉及到的各类证据规则仅限于电子证据可采性范围内的讨论,并非旨在建立完整意义上的证据规则和证据认证体系。在该认定规则中,关于电子证据可采性的认定,建立在针对不同电子证据类型划分的基础上,依据人为因素和设备因素在电子证据产生过程中影响力的差异,将其分为电子生成证据、电子存储证据和电子混成证据。目前,针对电子证据进行的类型划分多种多样,有的出于与传统证据类型相衔接的考虑将电子证据划分为电子物证、电子书证和电子证人证言等;也有的从技术层面考虑将电子证据划分为数据电文证据、附属信息证据和系统环境证据,但这些分类对目前尚待建立的电子证据规则来说意义并不大,都没有抓住其区分实质。电子证据之所以作为一种新型的证据被单列出来,是因为它与传统实物证据相比可能掺杂进人的主观因素,与传统言辞证据相比又具备相当的客观性,其既不适合被归入实物证据亦不适合被归入言辞证据,是一个“四不像”。本文中采用的归类方式正是抓住了这一实质特征。基于这一分类方法,对于不同类型的电子证据,其真实性、合法性的认定各有侧重,非法证据排除机制也各有不同,例如:电子存储证据因为只涉及人为操作的因素可以被视作言辞证据,因此,非法取得的电子存储证据应当绝对排除;电子生成证据完全由设备产生,客观性较强,可以视作实物证据,在非法取得的情况下,如能补正或作出合理解释就不予排除。另外,关于电子证据取证合法性的认定,鉴于我国目前引入了专家辅助人制度,经由专家取得的电子证据的效力目前在法律适用上还存在一定的障碍,专业人员作为非侦查主体自身并不具备取证资格,其取得证据的合法性有待进一步明确。
[Abstract]:In the context of the rapid expansion of the electronic information industry, the network and electronic equipment have developed into a part closely related to social life. In the legal field, electronic evidence is gradually showing its irreplaceable evidentiary ability. However, compared with other countries in the world where the electronic information industry is also developed, the legislation on electronic evidence in our country is not complete enough to deal with all kinds of problems in judicial practice. As early as 2011, Wu Bangguo, then chairman of the standing Committee of the National people's Congress, declared that the legal system of socialism with Chinese characteristics had been formed, and at the same time pointed out that it was not perfect. The legislative framework of the socialist legal system with Chinese characteristics still needs a complete electronic evidence law or even evidence law to fill it. Therefore, whether from the current needs of judicial practice or from the long-term consideration of the complete construction of our legal system, It is urgent to formulate the rules of admissibility of electronic evidence. The rules of admissibility of electronic evidence envisaged in this paper are dominated by relevance, authenticity and legality, and are supported by the rules of exclusion of illegal evidence and the rules of best evidence. The various types of evidentiary rules involved are limited to discussions within the scope of admissibility of electronic evidence and are not intended to establish a complete system of evidence rules and evidence certification. In the rules, the determination of the admissibility of electronic evidence, Based on the classification of different types of electronic evidence, according to the difference of influence between human factors and equipment factors in the process of producing electronic evidence, it is divided into electronic generated evidence, electronic storage evidence and electronic mixed evidence. There are many types of electronic evidence, some of which are divided into electronic physical evidence, e-book evidence and electronic witness testimony due to the consideration of convergence with the traditional evidence types. There are also technical considerations regarding the classification of electronic evidence into data message evidence, subsidiary information evidence and system environment evidence, but these classifications are of little significance to the electronic evidence rules that are yet to be established, The reason why electronic evidence is singled out as a new type of evidence is that it may be mixed into subjective factors as compared with traditional physical evidence, and that electronic evidence is quite objective in comparison with traditional verbal evidence. It is not suitable to be classified as either physical evidence or verbal evidence. It is a "four differences". The classification method used in this paper captures this essential characteristic. Based on this classification method, for different types of electronic evidence, Its authenticity, legitimacy and exclusionary mechanism of illegal evidence are different. For example, electronic storage evidence can be regarded as verbal evidence because only factors involving human manipulation can be regarded as verbal evidence. Illegally obtained electronic storage evidence should be absolutely excluded; the electronic generated evidence is entirely produced by the equipment and has strong objectivity and can be regarded as physical evidence. In the case of illegally obtained evidence, if it can be corrected or reasonably explained, it shall not be excluded. In addition, In view of the introduction of the expert assistant system in our country, the validity of electronic evidence obtained by experts still has some obstacles in the application of the law. As a non-investigative subject, professionals do not possess the qualification to obtain evidence, and the legality of obtaining evidence needs to be further clarified.
【学位授予单位】：郑州大学
【学位级别】：硕士
【学位授予年份】：2015
【分类号】：D925.2

【参考文献】