瑕疵证据在刑事诉讼中的认定与使用

发布时间：2018-03-10 04:07

本文选题：瑕疵证据的认定　切入点：补正　出处：《吉林大学》2014年硕士论文　论文类型：学位论文

【摘要】：在当代社会，由于刑事诉讼越来越强调惩罚犯罪与人权保障的双重目的性，因此，处于旨在保障人权的非法证据和意在惩罚犯罪的合法证据中间地带的瑕疵证据的地位便越来越为重要。正因为瑕疵证据本身所具有的特点，因此瑕疵证据的出现一方面有利于在刑事案件中证据的采信打破原有的僵化的“一刀切”的证据认定标准，对于一些特定原因而无法满足可采信证据条件的证明材料，通过一定的程序加以补正，以达到采信并利用的法律效果，最终完成惩治犯罪的目的；而另一方面，，在追求惩罚犯罪之目的的同时，尽管提高了犯罪嫌疑人被定罪量刑的可能性，但是也并未忽略对人权的保护，因为法律所规定的可以采信的瑕疵证据，其所谓的瑕疵不能导致对证据客观性和真实性的影响，否则就不能够被采信，从这个角度来看也保障了人权。我国《刑事诉讼法》虽然已经以法律的形式承认了瑕疵证据的存在，对瑕疵证据与非法证据的区分以列举的方式进行了界定，并且对瑕疵证据的使用方式有了一定的规定，但是我国现行法对瑕疵证据在立法上的规定以及在学理上的研究仍然存在着诸多不足之处。在瑕疵证据认定中主要存在的不足包括：缺少普适性、总括性的标准，以至于在实践操作过程中难以真正的区分瑕疵证据与非法证据，因而难以真正的发挥瑕疵证据的作用；对违反法定程序所形成证据的划分模糊，在司法实践中，因违反法定程序而产生的无法采信的证明材料比比皆是，因此此类证据是否可以作为瑕疵证据进而通过法定程序被采信对瑕疵证据使用范围的扩大至关重要；法官的自由裁量权缺少必要的原则，致使同样的情况难以同样对待，导致实质上的不公平。在瑕疵证据使用中存在的不足包括：启动主体不明确，会导致实践中瑕疵证据的启动混乱，进而致使难以启动；没有规定具体的审查程序以及审查的标准；缺少对证明责任的规定，不利于保护辩方的诉讼权利以及对基本人权的保护。笔者试图从瑕疵证据的界定为出发点，厘清瑕疵证据与非法证据的区别，并通过对理论和实践的分析，确定瑕疵证据与非法证据的判断标准，同时对我国现阶段瑕疵证据认定标准所存在的不足进行总结。另外，通过对我国现行法中所规定的瑕疵证据的使用方式，即补正与合理解释两种方式进行阐述，分析并总结在瑕疵证据使用过程中所存在的不足。最后，笔者针对我国现阶段瑕疵证据在认定和使用过程中存在的问题提出了相应的完善建议，包括厘清非法证据与瑕疵证据的区分，设定概括性认定标准；完善瑕疵证据审查程序以及使用方式；建立健全相关问责机制。
[Abstract]:In contemporary society, due to the increasing emphasis of criminal proceedings on the dual purpose of punishing crime and guaranteeing human rights, The position of defective evidence in the middle of illegal evidence designed to protect human rights and lawful evidence intended to punish crimes is becoming increasingly important... precisely because of the characteristics of defective evidence itself, Therefore, the appearance of defective evidence on the one hand is conducive to breaking the original rigid "one-size-fits-all" standard of evidence identification in criminal cases, and for some specific reasons, it cannot satisfy the conditions of admissible evidence. In order to achieve the legal effect of adopting and utilizing to punish the crime, on the other hand, while pursuing the purpose of punishing the crime, Although the possibility of a criminal suspect being convicted and sentenced has been improved, the protection of human rights has not been neglected, because the so-called defects of admissible defective evidence provided by law cannot lead to an impact on the objectivity and authenticity of the evidence. Otherwise, it cannot be accepted, and from this point of view human rights are protected. Although China's Criminal procedure Law has recognized the existence of defective evidence in the form of law, the distinction between defective evidence and illegal evidence is defined by enumeration, and there are certain provisions on the use of defective evidence. However, the current law of our country still has many deficiencies in the legislative provisions and the research on the theory of defective evidence. The main deficiencies in the identification of defective evidence include: lack of universality, universal standards, Therefore, it is difficult to truly distinguish defective evidence from illegal evidence in the process of practical operation, so it is difficult to truly play the role of defective evidence; the division of evidence formed by violation of legal procedures is vague, and in judicial practice, The evidence that can not be accepted because of violating the legal procedure is everywhere, so whether such evidence can be used as defective evidence and then be accepted through the legal procedure is of great importance to the expansion of the scope of use of defective evidence; The lack of necessary principles of the judge's discretion makes it difficult to treat the same situation and leads to substantive injustice. The shortcomings in the use of defective evidence include: the indeterminacy of the priming subject, This can lead to confusion in the initiation of defective evidence in practice, which in turn makes it difficult to initiate; the absence of specific review procedures and the criteria for review; and the lack of provisions on the burden of proof, Not conducive to the protection of the defence's procedural rights and the protection of fundamental human rights. Based on the definition of defective evidence, the author tries to clarify the difference between defective evidence and illegal evidence, and through the analysis of theory and practice, determines the judgment standard between defective evidence and illegal evidence. At the same time, it summarizes the shortcomings of the standards for the identification of defective evidence in our country at the present stage. In addition, through the use of defective evidence stipulated in the current law of our country, that is, the two ways of correction and reasonable explanation, This paper analyzes and summarizes the shortcomings in the process of the use of defective evidence. Finally, the author puts forward some suggestions for the perfection of the problems existing in the identification and use of defective evidence at the present stage in our country. It includes clarifying the distinction between illegal evidence and defective evidence, setting up a general identification standard; perfecting the examination procedure and usage of defective evidence; and establishing and perfecting the relevant accountability mechanism.
【学位授予单位】：吉林大学
【学位级别】：硕士
【学位授予年份】：2014
【分类号】：D925.2

【参考文献】