证据规则中的新实质真实主义——认罪认罚从宽制度中证据规则的理论反思

发布时间：2018-03-14 18:18

本文选题：认罪认罚从宽制度　切入点：证据规则　出处：《新疆大学学报(哲学·人文社会科学版)》2017年03期 　论文类型：期刊论文

【摘要】：随着我国认罪认罚从宽制度的产生与发展,"犯罪事实无涉"令认罪案件证据规则逐渐具有突破实质真实而转向形式真实的可能。对该证据规则反思可发现:无罪推定原则虽存在"主动例外",实质真实主义仍被继续贯彻;认罪合法性即使成为口供审查重心,裁判者仍需对其事实基础进行全面认定;对认罪案件口供真实性与自愿性的补强实际上提升了实质真实在证据规则中的地位;认罪案件虽应以自由证明为原则、严格证明为例外,却因证明对象的普遍交叉或者待证事实的重复审查而导致证明方式无从区分。因此,尽管是一种介于实质真实主义与形式真实主义之间的证据法命题,认罪案件证据规则的核心理念仍然是实质真实主义,只不过因强调被告人的程序选择权而具有一定形式化的空间,属于一种"新实质真实主义"的证据规则。这种情况下,主张在认罪认罚从宽制度中降低证明标准并实行一审终审的观点是难以成立的。
[Abstract]:With the emergence and development of the lenient system of guilty admission and punishment in our country, the evidence rules of plea cases gradually have the possibility of breaking through the essence of truth and turning to formal truth. Reflecting on this rule of evidence, it can be found that: not guilty. In spite of the existence of "initiative exception" in the principle of presumption, substantial truthfulness is still carried out. Even if the legality of confession becomes the focus of confession examination, the referee still needs to make a comprehensive determination of its factual basis; the reinforcement of the truth and the voluntary nature of confession actually enhances the status of substantive truth in the rules of evidence. Although the principle of free proof should be taken as the principle of confession, the strict proof should be the exception, but the way of proof is indistinguishable because of the universal cross-examination of the object of proof or the repeated examination of the facts to be proved. Although it is a proposition of evidence law between substantive truthfulness and formal truthfulness, the core idea of evidence rules in plea cases is still substantial truthfulness. Only because it emphasizes the procedural option of the defendant, it has some formalized space, which belongs to a kind of evidence rule of "new substantial truthfulness". In this case, It is difficult to hold the view that the standard of proof should be lowered in the system of leniency of plea and punishment and the final decision of first instance should be carried out.
【作者单位】：北京大学法学院;
【基金】：国家社会科学基金一般项目“认罪认罚从宽制度实施程序研究”(15BFX072)
【分类号】：D925.2

【相似文献】