间接证据定案规则研究

发布时间：2018-05-21 18:20

本文选题：直接证据 + 间接证据　；参考：《西南政法大学》2014年硕士论文

【摘要】：我国颁布实施的《关于办理死刑案件审查判断证据若干问题的规定》和《最高人民法院关于适用中华人民共和国刑事诉讼法的解释》均明确规定了间接证据定案规则，可见运用间接证据定案既切实可行，又具有重要作用。司法实践中，办案人员应该转变传统办案思维，与时俱进，运用自身专业素养和能力准确适用间接证据定案规则。本文通过案例分析法、说理论证法、对比论证法等，尝试体现司法实践中运用间接证据定案的不可或缺性以及间接证据对直接证据的印证和补证作用的重要性。在此基础上指出我国现阶段适用间接证据定案规则所面临的困境及其自身所存在的问题，并为完善间接证据定案规则提出一些建议。全文共分为五个部分，共约三万二千字。第一部分为间接证据概述。文章认为，间接证据是指不能单独而需要与其他证据结合才能证明案件主要事实的证据，指明“案件主要事实”是指“某人实施了某种犯罪行为”，即案件主要事实包含某人和某事，还通过具体案例详细区分了直接证据与间接证据。文章总结的间接证据的基本特点包括以下几点：证明作用的中立性、证明方式的推理性、证明过程的依赖性、证明范围的广泛性以及证据种类的多样性。第二部分为间接证据对直接证据的作用。文章认为，间接证据可以印证和补证直接证据，通过间接证据提供的线索可以获取直接证据。文章首先论述了直接证据自身内在的缺陷无法避免，如果完全依靠直接证据定案就可能具有较大的定案风险。文章再通过具体案例论述间接证据对直接证据的印证和补证可以弥补直接证据自身缺陷，降低定案风险，提高直接证据的可靠性。第三部分为间接证据独立定案作用。这是本文的核心部分，主要论述间接证据定案规则的具体内容和根据间接证据定案应采用“排除合理怀疑”的证明标准。文章先详细论述了法律条文规定的间接证据定案规则的具体内容，还通过具体的案例来说明单独使用间接证据定案的重要性和可行性。根据我国《刑事诉讼法》已确立“排除合理怀疑”的证明标准，论述间接证据采用“排除一切合理怀疑”的证明标准的不科学，指出采用“客观真实性”的证明标准的不可行和需要贯彻执行“排除合理怀疑”证明标准的原因和必要性。第四部分为间接证据定案规则运用的实践困境。文章认为，运用间接证据定案的过程中主要存在以下三点困境：一是“一对一”案件的困境。首先，完全依赖于直接证据，甚至有时偏向被告人或被害人一方的直接证据；其次，在“一对一”案件中，间接证据对直接证据的印证和补充作用未能发挥出应有的作用，尤其是在案件的关键点和细节部分，未能找到足够的间接证据予以印证。二是“证据体系”的困境，应该考虑构建“证据绳索式”的间接证据证明体系。三是“相互印证”证明模式困境，证据之间形成相互印证不能“为了印证而印证”。文章通过具体案件深刻剖析困境存在的原因，为实践中存在的困境指明方向。第五部分为我国间接证据定案规则的完善。文章认为，可以通过以下方法来完善间接证据定案规则：一是构建合理的诉讼证明模式，采用“相互印证”证明模式为主，“自由心证”为辅的证明模式，还要充分发挥间接证据对直接证据的印证作用。二是贯彻实施“排除合理怀疑”的证明标准。办案人员调查处理案件时应转变传统办案思维，摒弃“客观真实”的证明标准，实施“排除合理怀疑”即达到“高度盖然性”的证明标准；三是重视逻辑推理和经验判断的运用，，注重培养法官的专业素质和办案能力。
[Abstract]:The regulations on Several Issues concerning the examination and judgment of the death penalty cases and the interpretation of the application of the criminal procedure law in People's Republic of China by the Supreme People's court have clearly stipulated the rules of indirect evidence setting. It can be seen that the use of indirect evidence is practical and important. In judicial practice, the case is handled. People should change the traditional thinking of handling cases, keep pace with the times and apply their own professionalism and ability to accurately apply the rules of indirect evidence setting. This article tries to demonstrate the inability or lack of indirect evidence in judicial practice by case analysis, reasoning and comparison, and the evidence of indirect evidence in direct evidence. On the basis of this, this paper points out the difficulties faced by the current rule of indirect evidence setting in China and its own problems, and puts forward some suggestions for the improvement of the rules of indirect evidence setting. The full text is divided into five parts, with a total of about thirty-two thousand words.
The first part is the summary of indirect evidence. The article holds that the indirect evidence refers to the evidence that can not be combined with other evidence to prove the main facts of the case, indicating that "the main facts of the case" means "a person has carried out some kind of criminal act", that is, the main facts of the case include someone and something, and the detailed distinction between a specific case and a specific case. The basic characteristics of indirect evidence summarized in this article include the following points: the neutrality of the proof, the reasoning of the proof, the dependence of the process, the universality of the scope of proof and the diversity of the species of evidence.
The second part is the effect of indirect evidence on direct evidence. The article holds that indirect evidence can prove and supplement direct evidence, and direct evidence can be obtained through the clues provided by indirect evidence. In this paper, a case study is made to prove that indirect evidence can make up the defects of direct evidence, reduce the risk of the case, and improve the reliability of direct evidence.
The third part is the independent confirmation of indirect evidence. This is the core part of this article. It mainly discusses the specific content of the rules of the indirect evidence setting and the standard of proving the "reasonable doubt" according to the indirect evidence setting. The case of the body shows the importance and feasibility of using the indirect evidence set alone. According to the standard of proof of "excluding reasonable doubt" in the criminal procedure law of China, it is discussed that the indirect evidence is unscientific using the proof standard of "eliminating all reasonable doubts", and points out the infeasibility of adopting the proof standard of "objective reality". It is necessary to carry out the reason and necessity of "excluding reasonable doubt".
The fourth part is the practical predicament of the application of the indirect evidence order rules. The article holds that there are three difficulties in the process of using indirect evidence: one is the dilemma of "one to one". First, it is entirely dependent on direct evidence, even the direct evidence to the defendant or the victim; secondly, "one pair" In one case, indirect evidence does not play its due role in the evidence and supplement of direct evidence, especially in the key points and details of the case, and can not find sufficient circumstantial evidence to prove it. Two is the dilemma of the "evidence system", and the construction of an indirect evidence proof system of "evidence rope" should be considered. Three "Mutual proof" proves the plight of the model, and the evidence between each other can not be confirmed "for proof". The article deeply analyzes the reasons for the existence of the predicament through specific cases, and points out the direction for the predicament in practice.
The fifth part is the perfection of the rules of indirect evidence setting in China. The article believes that the following methods can be used to improve the rules of the indirect evidence setting: one is to build a reasonable proof model of litigation, adopt the proof model of mutual proof, and "free evidence" as the supplementary proof, and give full play to the direct evidence to direct evidence. Two is to carry out the proof standard of "eliminating reasonable doubt". When investigating and handling cases, the case handling personnel should change the traditional thinking of handling cases, abandon the proof standard of "objective truth", implement the proof standard of "eliminating reasonable doubt", that is "high probability", and the three is the application of logical reasoning and experience judgment. Pay attention to training the professional quality of the judge and the ability to run a case.
【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】