证人出庭作证例外的裁量性标准问题探析——基于修订后《刑事诉讼法》第187条、第188条的分析

发布时间：2018-04-25 05:17

本文选题：强制出庭作证 + 证人庭外陈述　；参考：《政治与法律》2013年05期

【摘要】：在目前的刑事司法体制下,如何使修订后《刑事诉讼法》第187条、第188条关于强制证人出庭作证的"没有必要"及"有正当理由"的例外,经由设定明晰化可裁量性标准,防止司法恣意,是实施《刑事诉讼法》必须面对的问题。对此较为妥当的做法应为,依循既有的司法解释进路,在规范性语句和刑事传闻规则法理的双重约束下,推导出既定条文的意义脉络,进行"创制性解释",根据庭外陈述的"可信性"能否得到保证以及出庭作证的"客观障碍"存在与否等,设置我国强制证人出庭作证的例外,以规范"没有必要"及"有正当理由"的适用。这种解释在证据形式上应按照系统性要求,从陈述的内容、制作的主体及程序等方面明确规定,使"没有必要"及"有正当理由"标准具有明确性和可预期性,以此实现对裁量的羁束。
[Abstract]:Under the current criminal justice system, how to make the exceptions to article 187 of the revised Code of Criminal procedure and article 188 of the revised Code of Criminal procedure concerning the "unnecessary" and "justified" of compelling witnesses to testify in court by setting a standard of clarity and discretion, To prevent judicial arbitrariness is a problem that must be faced in the implementation of Criminal procedure Law. The more appropriate approach should be to follow the existing path of judicial interpretation, under the dual constraints of normative statements and criminal hearsay rules, to deduce the meaning of the established provisions. According to whether the "credibility" of out-of-court statements can be guaranteed and the existence of "objective obstacles" to testify in court, the exception of compulsory witnesses appearing in court in China is set up. To regulate the application of "unnecessary" and "justified". In the form of evidence, this interpretation should be clearly defined in terms of the content of the statement, the subject of production and the procedure, in accordance with systematic requirements, so that the criteria of "unnecessary" and "justified" are clear and predictable. In order to achieve discretion of restraint.
【作者单位】：南京师范大学法学院;
【基金】：作者主持的教育部2012年规划课题“职务犯罪技术侦查:法理论证与制度完善”(项目编号:12YJA820022)的成果
【分类号】：D925.2

【参考文献】