积极抗辩事由的证明责任:误解与澄清

发布时间：2018-03-21 01:08

本文选题：积极抗辩事由　切入点：证明责任　出处：《法学研究》2016年02期 　论文类型：期刊论文

【摘要】：近年来,国内有学者主张应当将所谓"积极抗辩事由"的证明责任分配给被告人,认为这种分配机制不仅契合"谁主张,谁举证"的证明责任分配原理和"由容易举证者举证"的证明政策,而且符合当前法治成熟国家的普遍做法。但是,这些观点不仅在比较法上存在严重误解,而且没有认识到刑事证明责任的特殊性,更缺乏对我国法律和实践的充分关照,因此,这些观点不足以成为要求我国刑事诉讼中的被告人承担积极抗辩事由证明责任的依据。相反,由于存在因客观败诉风险而导致的证明必要,当下亟需强化对被告人辩护权的保障以及司法机关的"照顾义务",而不是要求被告人承担积极抗辩事由的证明责任。
[Abstract]:In recent years, some domestic scholars have argued that the burden of proof of the so-called "positive defense" should be assigned to the defendant. The principle of the distribution of the burden of proof "who adduces proof" and the "proof policy" of "easy proof" are consistent with the prevailing practice of mature countries with the rule of law... however, these views are not only seriously misunderstood in comparative law, Moreover, it does not recognize the particularity of the burden of proof in criminal cases, nor does it give sufficient attention to our country's law and practice, so, These views are not enough to be the basis for requiring the defendants in our criminal proceedings to bear the burden of proof of positive defenses. On the contrary, it is necessary to prove the existence of the risk of objective defeat. At present, it is urgent to strengthen the protection of the defendant's right to defense and the "duty of care" of the judicial organ, instead of requiring the defendant to bear the burden of proof of positive defense.
【作者单位】：西南政法大学诉讼法与司法改革研究中心;
【基金】：国家社科基金项目“刑事错案风险分配研究”(12BFX059)的阶段性成果
【分类号】：D915.3;D925.2

【相似文献】