我国刑事质证制度研究

发布时间：2018-05-09 13:35

本文选题：刑事质证 + 质证程序　；参考：《湘潭大学》2007年硕士论文

【摘要】： 质证是司法证明的基本环节,同时又是庭审活动的必经程序。其对于法官正确认定证据、保障控辩双方实现自己的诉讼主张、以及对随后法庭辩论的进行等方面发挥着有利的作用。质证的目的不仅仅是为法官随后的认证提供一个过滤装置,更重要的是为被告方参与到法庭审判中、为其展示自己的证据以及反驳对方的证据提供了一个平台,可以说,质证是发现案件真实、维护司法公正的必然要求。质证的本质在于“质”,即对对方证据的质疑和质问,带有当面对抗的性质,因此,质证的有效运行需要控辩对抗的诉讼结构。然而,我国目前的刑事庭审就是对抗性不足,依然保留了较为浓厚的法官讯问式色彩,这使庭审质证效果大打折扣。除此之外,质证制度本身是否科学对质证功能的发挥也有很大影响。从法律有关质证的表述来看,无论是79年还是96年刑事诉讼法,“质证”一词都只是出现在证据有关条文的表述中,是作为证人证言审查判断的重要活动之一。而在普通审判程序的有关条文中没有对“质证”一词作出明确的规定,也没有对质证的运作程序等作出具体的安排,质证作为庭审必经程序的地位未得到凸现。立法对质证规定的简单、粗糙,造成了实践中缺乏可操作性,虽然司法解释在一定程度上弥补了立法的不足,但还是不能解决审判实践中的操作困难。而且法律对质证制度的相关配套制度规定得也很不完善,如立法上没有建立保障证人、鉴定人出庭的一系列制度。因此,深入研究刑事质证制度具有重要的理论意义和现实意义。笔者认为刑事质证制度的完善,首先要从宏观上转变诉讼结构,主要是增加庭审的当事人主义色彩,增强庭审的对抗性,同时要注意度的把握,不能盲目当事人化,一味地强调对抗,而应当是在法官主持下的控辩之间的平等对抗。其次,要建立科学的质证程序,笔者认为对于质证程序的完善主要是借鉴英美的交叉询问,交叉询问应作为我国控辩式庭审中的主要质证方式,并在此基础上来具体安排程序的运作。同时,法律也应进一步完善质证所需的规则,以增加质证的可操作性。最后,就是要建立和健全保障质证有效运行所需的相关配套措施。
[Abstract]:Cross-examination is the basic link of judicial proof and the necessary procedure of trial activity. It plays a favorable role in the judge's correct identification of evidence, the protection of the prosecution and the defence to realize their own claims, and the subsequent court debate. The purpose of cross-examination is not only to provide a filtering device for the subsequent authentication of the judge, but more importantly to provide a platform for the defence to participate in court trials, to present its own evidence and to refute the other party's evidence. Cross-examination is the inevitable requirement to find out the truth of the case and to maintain the judicial justice. The essence of cross-examination lies in "quality", that is, the questioning and questioning of the other party's evidence has the nature of face to face confrontation. Therefore, the effective operation of cross-examination needs the litigation structure of prosecution and defense confrontation. However, the present criminal trial in our country is lack of adversarial, and it still retains the strong color of judge interrogation, which greatly reduces the effect of cross-examination. In addition, the cross-examination system itself has a great impact on the function of cross-examination. According to the expression of cross-examination in law, no matter in 79 years or 96 years of criminal procedure law, the word "cross-examination" appears only in the expression of relevant provisions of evidence, and it is one of the important activities in the examination and judgment of witness testimony. However, in the relevant provisions of the ordinary trial procedure, there is no clear stipulation on the word "cross-examination", and no specific arrangement is made for the operation procedure of cross-examination, and the status of cross-examination as a necessary procedure in the trial has not been highlighted. Because of the simplicity and roughness of the legislation on cross-examination, there is a lack of maneuverability in practice. Although the judicial interpretation makes up for the deficiency of legislation to a certain extent, it still can not solve the operational difficulties in trial practice. And the relevant supporting system of cross-examination system is not perfect, such as legislation does not establish a series of systems to protect witnesses and experts to appear in court. Therefore, the in-depth study of criminal cross-examination system has important theoretical and practical significance. The author thinks that in order to perfect the system of criminal cross-examination, we should change the structure of litigation from the macro perspective, mainly increase the color of litigant doctrine in the trial, strengthen the adversarial of the trial, at the same time, we should grasp the degree of attention, not blindly turn the parties. Instead of emphasizing confrontation, it should be an equal confrontation between charges and arguments under the authority of a judge. Secondly, to establish a scientific cross-examination procedure, the author thinks that the perfection of cross-examination procedure is mainly to learn from the cross-examination of the United States and the United States, and cross-examination should be the main way of cross-examination in the prosecution and defense court in our country. And on this basis to the specific arrangements for the operation of the procedure. At the same time, the law should further improve the rules required for cross-examination in order to increase the operability of cross-examination. Finally, it is necessary to establish and improve the effective operation of cross-examination necessary supporting measures.
【学位授予单位】：湘潭大学
【学位级别】：硕士
【学位授予年份】：2007
【分类号】：D925.23

【参考文献】