论非法证据排除规则的适用问题

发布时间：2018-04-21 20:24

本文选题：非法证据排除规则 + 举证证明责任分配　；参考：《南昌大学》2017年硕士论文

【摘要】：目前我国在严格适用非法证据排除规则方面存在十大技术难题,Eg:定义难、辨别难、提出难、举证难、调查难、对质难、认定难、排除难、协调难和配套难。同时“两院三部”联合出台的《关于办理刑事案件排除非法证据若干问题的规定》在价值理性层面也标志着非法证据排除规则在我国的实质确立。如果把证据法规则按照“程序—实体”模式来进行类型化分析,那么非法证据排除规则的要旨在于用一种“刚性”的办法,强制排除滥用或者误用侦查取证权力所获取的证据,以此来规范侦讯主体的取证程序和取证方法。非法证据规则要排除取证主体通过非法程序或者非法方法获取的证据,这些证据从国外有关非法证据排除的司法实务上来看,不少是具有事实证明作用和价值的,只不过基于取证程序或者方法的不法性而要作法定排除,其中最典型是“辛普森”案。这个在我国可能半个小时就可以判定嫌疑人有罪的案件,在美国却用了半年,而且还因为取证程序的缺陷而导致定罪的关键证据不能使用。对于非法证据排除规则上述的证据法属性,德国学者罗科信有一个形象的比喻:如果说包括刑事证据制度在内的整个刑事诉讼法是一个国家宪法和法治化程度的测震器,那么非法证据排除规则就是刑事诉讼法这部测震器上最为重要的装置,或者说,非法证据排除规则是刑事诉讼法的测震器。从非法证据排除的学理来看,按照日本学者田口守一的说法,非法证据排除的精髓,是要排除“根据违法侦查发现的证据而再次发现的证据(派生证据)”,按照德国学者罗科信的说法,“一证据使用(证据力)禁止之效力亦深达间接取得之证据上”。美国联邦最高法院的沃伦伯格首席大法官曾宣称:“随着时间的推移,现在已经表明规则的继续存在和实施阻碍了具有理性的替代方式的产生。只要排除规则以现在的形式继续存在,确立新的替代方式的动力就微不足道或者不存在。”《非法证据排除规定》的颁布与实施是我国相关证据制度发展史上所引起的一个具有里程碑意义的大事件,不管是在实体还是程序方面且都是具有非常重要的价值。为此,从实体方面来看,该规则能够一定程度上地提高办案质量,以防冤假错案的再次发生,从而促进对相关实体真实的发现;同时从程序方面来看,该规则还能够有效地遏制相关刑讯逼供行为,进一步加强公安机关以及相关司法人员在证据意识与程序意识这方面的培养,从而彰显程序公正所体现的价值,以此来保障人权。
[Abstract]:At present, there are ten technical difficulties in strict application of the rule of exclusion of illegal evidence in our country: difficult to define, difficult to distinguish, difficult to put forward, difficult to prove, difficult to investigate, difficult to confront, difficult to identify, difficult to remove, difficult to coordinate and difficult to match. At the same time, "three departments of the two Houses" issued jointly "on handling criminal cases to exclude illegal evidence of a number of issues" in the value of rational level also marks the illegal evidence exclusion rules in China's substantive establishment. If the rules of evidence law are classified according to the model of "procedure and entity", the main purpose of the rule of exclusion of illegal evidence is to use a "rigid" method to forcibly exclude the evidence obtained by abusing or misusing the power to obtain evidence through investigation. In this way, the procedure and methods of collecting evidence of the subject of investigation should be standardized. The rules of illegal evidence should exclude the evidence obtained by the main body of evidence through illegal procedures or illegal methods. From the point of view of the judicial practice in foreign countries on the exclusion of illegal evidence, many of these evidence have the function and value of factual proof. It is only legal exclusion based on the illegality of the evidentiary procedure or method, the most typical of which is the Simpson case. This case, in which suspects can be convicted in half an hour in our country, took half a year in the United States, and the key evidence for a conviction could not be used because of deficiencies in the evidentiary procedure. With regard to the above evidence law attributes of the rule of exclusion of illegal evidence, the German scholar Rocco Xin has an image metaphor: if the entire criminal procedure law, including the criminal evidence system, is a seismograph of the state constitution and the degree of rule of law, Well, the rule of exclusion of illegal evidence is the most important device on the seismograph of the Criminal procedure Law, or, in other words, the rule of exclusion of illegal evidence is the seismograph of the Code of Criminal procedure. From the perspective of the theory of the exclusion of illegal evidence, according to Japanese scholar Shouichi Tanaguchi, the essence of the exclusion of illegal evidence is to exclude "evidence (derived evidence) found again on the basis of evidence found in illegal investigations." According to the German scholar Rocco letter, "the effect of a prohibition on the use of evidence extends to evidence obtained indirectly." Chief Justice Wallenberg of the Federal Supreme Court once declared: "over time, it has been shown that the continued existence and enforcement of rules hinders the emergence of rational alternatives. As long as the exclusion rule continues to exist in its present form, The motive force for establishing new alternatives is insignificant or non-existent. "the promulgation and implementation of the" exclusion of illegal evidence "is a landmark event in the history of the development of the relevant evidence system in China. Both physical and procedural aspects are of great value. For this reason, from the substantive point of view, the rule can improve the quality of the case to some extent, prevent the case from happening again, and thus promote the discovery of the truth of the entity concerned; at the same time, from the procedural point of view, This rule can also effectively curb the behavior of extorting confessions by torture and further strengthen the cultivation of evidence consciousness and procedural awareness of public security organs and related judicial personnel, thus highlighting the value of procedural justice, thus protecting human rights.
【学位授予单位】：南昌大学
【学位级别】：硕士
【学位授予年份】：2017
【分类号】：D925.2

【相似文献】