检察机关履行证明责任保障机制研究

发布时间：2018-04-24 12:55

本文选题：检察机关 + 证明责任　；参考：《西南政法大学》2014年硕士论文

【摘要】：在刑事证明责任理论中，证明责任的保障机制系极为重要的命题。近年来，随着刑事证据制度改革的深入，诸多法律条款及司法解释直接间接地涉及检察机关承担证明责任的基本保障问题。但此一命题涉及面极广：在规则内容上，涵盖了证据规则、程序规则和组织规则；在诉讼阶段上，跨越了侦查、起诉和审判三大程序。且由于直面司法实践，现有的理论研究几乎很难全面、深刻而又贴近实务的需要。基于此，检察机关履行证明责任的保障机制研究才更需要理论的突破和实践的支持。检察机关履行证明责任，就证明对象来说，既包含实体性事实的证明，亦包含程序性事实的证明，二者紧密结合，不可偏废。本文在理论分析的基础上，结合实际案例来全面探讨检察机关履行证明责任保障机制的制度缺陷和实践难题，在此基础上提出如何建构检察机关履行证明责任的保障机制，以促使检察机关有效地履行证明责任。本文共分为五部分。第一部分：证明责任及其保障机制。本部分主要对检察机关履行证明责任进行重新定义，新的定义有助于全面把握检察机关履行证明责任的基本内涵。并对证明责任保障机制进行类型化分析，分析这些稳定的、系统的机制保障是检察机关履行证明责任的必要前提。作者认为，应从结构功能主义的角度对检察机关履行证明责任保障机制进行功能定位，指出建构我国检察机关履行证明责任保障机制的重要性和必要性。第二部分：证明责任保障机制的制度内容。本部分主要从三方面阐述检察机关履行证明责任保障机制的制度内容，即证据规则机制、程序规则机制和组织制度机制。证据规则保障机制包括非法证据排除规则、证据裁判规则和证据质证规则；程序规则机制包含程序监督规则、程序制裁规则和程序救济规则；组织制度机制包含组织内部保障和组织外部保障。第三部分：证明责任保障机制的制度缺陷。本部分通过从司法实务中选取有针对性的案例来分析检察机关履行证明责任保障机制的现实困境，介绍了阻碍检察机关履行证明责任保障机制的制度障碍，并从实体法、程序法和证据法的角度对证明责任保障机制的制度障碍进行了深入的剖析。这些制度上的缺陷导致检察机关不能有效地履行其证明责任，指出一贯的传统证明模式和与之不相适应的制度缺陷导致检察机关在新刑诉法实施的背景下已不能完成其使命。第四部分：证明责任保障机制的司法实践困境。本部分将通过案例分析的形式逐一剖析保障机制在司法实践中的困境，指出这些现实困境和上文分析中的制度障碍严重影响了检察机关有效地履行证明责任。在此背景下，才需要重新构建检察机关履行证明责任保障机制的实现路径。第五部分：证明责任保障机制的实现路径。本部分在上述问题的基础上提出解决问题的路径选择和制度构想。首先，必须完善证据规则的设置；其次，必须构建庭审的实质化审理机制，加强法院说理和督促法院实现当庭裁判的功能；最后，，建立检警协商的保障机制，搭建沟通平台，实现检察对侦查的引导和监督。
[Abstract]:In the theory of criminal proof responsibility , it is very important to prove the mechanism of responsibility . In recent years , with the deepening of the reform of the criminal evidence system , many legal provisions and judicial interpretation directly involve the basic guarantee of the burden of proof .
At the stage of the litigation , the three procedures of investigation , prosecution and trial are crossed . As a result of the direct judicial practice , the existing theoretical research is hardly comprehensive , profound and close to the needs of the practice . Based on this , the investigation of the guarantee mechanism of the burden of proof of the procuratorial organ needs the support of theoretical breakthrough and practice .

On the basis of the theoretical analysis , the author discusses how to construct the safeguard mechanism of the procuratorial organs to fulfill the burden of proof , so as to prompt the procuratorial organs to carry out the burden of proof effectively .

This paper is divided into five parts .

The first part is to prove the responsibility and its safeguard mechanism . This part mainly redefines the burden of proof to the procuratorial organs . The new definition will help to grasp the basic connotation of the burden of proof of the procuratorial organs . The author thinks that the function orientation of the guarantee mechanism of the burden of proof should be carried out from the angle of structural functionalism . It points out the importance and necessity of constructing the guarantee mechanism of proof of responsibility of the procuratorial organs in our country .

The second part is to prove the system contents of the responsibility guarantee mechanism . This part mainly expounds the system contents of the guarantee mechanism of the burden of proof of the procuratorial organs from three aspects , namely , the rules of evidence rule , the mechanism of procedure rules and the mechanism of the organization system . The evidence rule safeguard mechanism includes illegal evidence rule , evidence rule and evidence rule ;
The procedure rule mechanism includes program supervision rule , program sanction rule and procedure remedy rule ;
The organizational system mechanism includes intra - organization safeguards and organizational external safeguards .

The third part is to prove the system defect of the responsibility guarantee mechanism . This part analyzes the practical plight of the guarantee mechanism of the burden of proof by selecting the specific cases from the judicial practice , and introduces the systematic obstacles which prevent the procuratorial organs from fulfilling the guarantee mechanism of the burden of proof . The defects in these systems lead to the inability of the procuratorial organs to carry out their burden of proof effectively . The defects of these systems lead to the procuratorial organs failing to carry out their burden of proof effectively , pointing out that the traditional proof pattern and the system defects which are incompatible with them lead to the procuratorial organs unable to complete their mission under the background of the implementation of the new criminal procedure law .

The fourth part is to prove the dilemma of the judicial practice of the responsibility guarantee mechanism . This part will analyze the plight of the safeguard mechanism in judicial practice one by one through case analysis , and point out that these realistic difficulties and the institutional obstacles in the above analysis seriously affect the effective performance of the burden of proof . In this context , it is only necessary to reconstruct the fulfillment path of the guarantee mechanism of proof of responsibility of the procuratorial organ .

The fifth part is to prove the realization path of the responsibility safeguard mechanism . This part puts forward the path choice and the system idea of solving the problem on the basis of the above - mentioned problems . First , it is necessary to improve the setting of evidence rule ;
Secondly , it is necessary to construct the essence trial mechanism of the court , strengthen the court ' s reasoning and urge the court to realize the function of the court decision ;
Finally , establish the security mechanism of the police and police consultation , build the communication platform , and realize the inspection and guidance and supervision .

【学位授予单位】：西南政法大学
【学位级别】：硕士
【学位授予年份】：2014
【分类号】：D925.2

【参考文献】