法定证据制度辨误——兼及刑事证明力规则的乌托邦

发布时间：2018-04-30 18:49

本文选题：法定证据制度 + 源起　；参考：《政法论坛》2016年06期

【摘要】：自十三世纪起,欧洲各主要国家的立法者相继在刑事证据立法上确立了十分精确的证明力等级体系,详细规定了每种证据形式的可采性、不同种类证据在诉讼中的证明力以及证据间出现证明力冲突时的优先取舍问题,即所谓的法定证据制度。法定证据制度在欧洲运行了数个世纪,受到了诸多质疑和批判,但不少反对意见系建立在对该制度误解的基础之上,应予以澄清。法定证据制度对中国时下的刑事证明力规则建构具有较强的反思意义。在本质上,刑事证明力规则便是将法官对证据的自由评价绝对客观化、立法化,这与刑事犯罪的偶发性及不可预期性有着根本的冲突。历史证明,立法者不可能在刑事诉讼中确立一套普适的证明力规则。
[Abstract]:Since the thirteenth century, legislators in major European countries have successively established a very precise hierarchy of probative power in criminal evidence legislation, specifying in detail the admissibility of each form of evidence. The proof power of different kinds of evidence in litigation and the preference problem when there is evidence conflict between the evidence, namely the so-called legal evidence system. The system of statutory evidence has been operating in Europe for centuries and has been questioned and criticized. However, many objections are based on misunderstanding of the system and should be clarified. The system of legal evidence has a strong reflective significance to the construction of the rules of criminal proof in China. In essence, the rule of criminal proof is to make the judge's free evaluation of evidence absolutely objective and legislative, which has a fundamental conflict with the accidental and unpredictable nature of criminal crime. History proves that legislators can not establish a set of universal rules of proof in criminal proceedings.
【作者单位】：教育部、财政部"2011计划"司法文明协同创新中心;中国政法大学证据科学教育部重点实验室;
【分类号】：D915.3

【相似文献】