我国非法言词证据排除规则研究

发布时间：2018-03-14 18:35

本文选题：非法言词证据　切入点：规则　出处：《广西师范大学》2017年硕士论文　论文类型：学位论文

【摘要】：证据是法治的基石,是实现司法公正、保障人权的基石。在“深化司法体制改革,建立公正高效权威的社会主义法治制度”的任务中,刑事诉讼法一味的偏向保护被害人利益,忽视被告人权利的做法,已经成为实现公平正义的重大障碍,无法回应社会尊重和保障人权的宪法理念。证据制度作为法治国家的基本制度,处于诉讼制度的核心地位,而非法言词证据排除规则作为《证据法》排除的一项重要规则,是切实保障人权,防止采取刑讯逼供等侵犯人权的重要制度保障。该规则因其自身具有诉讼价值,为世界上大多数国家采纳,并成为联合国一项刑事司法准则。但是,自实施以来,我国的刑事非法证据排除规则长期处于真空地带,司法实践中刑讯逼供等非法取证现象始终存在,非法言词证据排除界定不清、标准不一。排除程序不健全,导致侦查阶段、审查起诉和审判阶段非法言词证据难以排除。我国刑事诉讼司法活动中一直存在“重口供,轻实物”,侦查人员往往坚持把获取的口供作为侦破案件和定罪量刑的依据。同时为了提高侦查之效益,侦查人员往往在采取非法手段获得大量的口供后,再根据犯罪嫌疑人、被告人的供述,进行再次取证,导致口供在司法认识上出现僵局。理论界和实务界对“毒树之果”认识不一,非法言词证据衍生实物证据的效力不明确,违法取证人员惩罚方式单一,被告人救济力度不够。加上我国传统的法律思维影响,使得该规则在实施过程中,阻力重重,导致频频出现冤假错案,严重影响对违法者的定罪量刑和被告人权利的救济。同时,在当今世界处于一个大变革、大发展的时期,经济全球化趋势不断加强,文化的融合力不断渗透。在国外,由于民众自上而下的法律意识与权益自我保护思维方式不断加强,非法言词证据规则理论相对完善。以英国与德国的对比来看。英国在证据排除规则上带有更多的司法性特点。为了维护社会稳定,在严格限制的情况下,对严重违法取得的证据予以排除保留了一定限度的自由裁量权,创造了少数非法证据排除例外的情形。对于“毒树之果”,英国的《证据法》依据非任意自白来决定是否排除,而美国采取了全面的排除观念,不管证据是否对案件事实有证明作用,只要是非法取得,就应当排除。德国在批判过程中发展出自由心证,对于“毒树之果”采取了较为谨慎的态度,其主要采用了“权衡理论”和“分等级”考察理论。但在法治方面,随着法系之间、国与国之间的法律交流日益密切,各国证据规则的发展呈现出一种相互借鉴、逐步靠拢的趋势。但在判断取证的合法性和证据的采纳性上,国与国诉讼法相交接的地方也难免会出现摩擦,特别是关于在何种条件下适用证据排除规则的问题上出现了严重分歧。如果取证方式虽然符合司法协助被要求国的法律,但违反本国《刑事诉讼法》,那么是否还适用非法证据排除规则,排除的前提是什么,这些问题也是全球国家亟待解决的困境。因此在研究非法言词证据排除规则时,探讨他国有益成果,对完善我国《证据法》具有重要的指导意义。法律的生命在于实施,如何将纸质上的证据法灵活运用到实务上,转化为实际行动上的法,还需要不断探索。因此,在推进以审判为中心背景下的诉讼制度改革中,完善非法言词证据制度排除规则,日益成为了社会关注的焦点。在实践中它对于保障人权、限制权力滥用以及维护司法公正有着不可低估的作用,是实现伟大中国法治梦的必经之路。
[Abstract]:The evidence is the foundation of the rule of law, is the realization of justice, the cornerstone for the protection of human rights. In the deepening of the reform of the judicial system, the establishment of a fair and efficient socialist legal system "the authority of the task in the criminal procedure law blindly toward protecting the interests of victims, ignoring the rights of the accused practices, has become a major obstacle to fairness and justice. In response to the social respect and safeguard human rights. The constitutional concept of evidence system as a basic system of the country under the rule of law, is the core of litigation system, and the illegal evidence exclusion rules as" an important rule of evidence > is excluded, guaranteeing human rights and to prevent inquisition by torture and other violations of human rights. The rules for an important institutional guarantee it has its own value of litigation, adopted by most countries in the world, and become a United Nations Criminal Justice Standards. However, since the implementation of China's criminal The exclusionary rule of illegal evidence in long-term vacuum, in the judicial practice of illegal evidence inquisition by torture phenomenon has always existed, illegal evidence exclusion is not clearly defined, not a standard. Exclusionary procedure is not perfect, resulting in the stage of investigation, prosecution and trial stages of illegal verbal evidence. It is difficult to get rid of heavy confession there has been a judicial activities of criminal procedure I in the light of real, "the investigators tend to insist on obtaining confessions as the detection of cases and the basis for conviction and sentencing. At the same time in order to improve the efficiency of the investigation, investigators often take illegal means to get a lot of confession, according to the criminal suspect, the defendant's confession, again lead to deadlock in evidence, confession judicial cognition. The theory and practice of the" fruit of the poisonous tree "is not a recognized, the effectiveness of illegal evidence derived physical evidence is not clear, illegal evidence The punishment is single, the defendant insufficient relief. Influence of the traditional legal thinking on the rules in the implementation process, heavy resistance, resulting in frequent miscarriages of justice, seriously affect the relief of offenders conviction and sentencing and the rights of the accused. At the same time, is a big change in the world today. A period of great development, the growing trend of economic globalization, cultural integration force constantly infiltration. In foreign countries, the legal consciousness and the rights and interests of people from top to bottom of the self protective way of thinking continues to strengthen, illegal evidence rule theory is relatively perfect. In contrast to Britain and Germany. With the British judicial characteristics more in evidence exclusion rules in order to maintain social stability, in strict restrictions, for serious illegal evidence excluded retains the discretion of certain limit, created a few illegal Evidence exclusion exceptions. For the "fruit of the poisonous tree", the British "evidence law > basis to decide whether to exclude non arbitrary confession, while the United States has taken out ideas, regardless of whether there is evidence to prove the facts of the case, as long as it is illegal, should be excluded. In the critical process of the development of Germany free proof, for the fruit of the poisonous tree" to take a more cautious attitude, the main use of the "balance theory" and "hierarchical" study theory. But in the rule of law, as the law, legal exchanges between nations have become more and more closely, the development of the rules of evidence showing a mutual for reference, gradually move closer to trend. But the adoption of the legitimacy and evidence forensics on the handover from country to country law where there will inevitably be friction, especially about the conditions in which the application of evidence exclusion rules. There was a serious problem. If different way of evidence although in line with the law of the requested state judicial assistance, but their violation of the criminal procedure law of < >, that would be the exclusionary rule, what is out of the premise, these problems are to be solved global dilemma. Therefore in the study of illegal evidence exclusion rules. To explore the achievements of his country, has an important guiding significance to perfect our country "law of evidence >. Life is the implementation of the law, how will the paper on the flexible use of evidence law to practice, into action on the law, but also need to continue to explore. Therefore, in promoting the center under the background of litigation system reform the trial, improve the exclusionary rule of illegal verbal evidence system, has become the focus of attention of the society. In practice it for the protection of human rights, limiting the abuse of power and justice is not The role of underestimation is the only way to realize the dream of great China's rule of law.

【学位授予单位】：广西师范大学
【学位级别】：硕士
【学位授予年份】：2017
【分类号】：D925.2

【相似文献】