行政执法与刑事司法证据的衔接问题研究

发布时间：2018-06-05 19:27

本文选题：两法证据衔接 + 证据转化　；参考：《山东大学》2014年硕士论文

【摘要】：为解决长期以来司法实践中行政执法和刑事司法两法证据衔接不畅的困境,2012年修改的《中华人民共和国刑事诉讼法》专门通过第52条第2款的具体规定对两法证据衔接制度做出了初步说明,该规定突破了以往学界通说的和司法实践中通用的证据转化规则,以法律规定的形式正式赋予行政证据在刑事司法程序中具备刑事证据能力,之后出台的新的高检规则和最高法解释均对该规定进行了较为保守的解释,大致上确立言词证据严格选择适用,实物证据直接加以适用的规则,由于行政法和刑事诉讼法两法均对证据种类做出了较为概括的规定,且略有差异,这就导致学界对解释中列举的多种证据的内涵和外延产生了诸多的争议,除此之外,由于司法解释对“行政主体”的外延并未做出明确的阐释,仅是用行政主体的概念一笔带过,这就导致学界对于条文中的衔接主体也争议颇大。解释条文中出现的“等”字也带来了一系列关于严格解释和扩大解释争论的一系列问题,就是说在程序正义这个标尺的衡量下,当前的法律规定和司法解释并未对证据的衔接问题作出很好的解决,对于证据的种类和范围需要进一步清晰地界定,将证据种类的范围做出适当的扩大,以达到法目的律条文与司法实践良性结合的。再者,在当前我国大行整治贪污腐败之风的大背景下,纪检监察部门作为办案主体的合法性需要作出进一步的讨论,在特殊的违法乱纪案件转化为贪污贿赂犯罪案件时,能否适用两法证据衔接规则,如何适用才能最大程度的达到打击贪腐之功效,这些都是学界亟待解决的难题。最后,作者认为,在厘清行政证据在刑事司法程序中运用的法理基础之后,我们很有必要在程序上完善行政证据在刑事诉讼中的使用,只有这样,两法才能真正得以有效衔接,证据才能更好地为侦破相关案件而服务。
[Abstract]:In order to solve the dilemma that the evidence of administrative law enforcement and criminal justice has not been connected smoothly in judicial practice for a long time, the Criminal procedure Law of the people's Republic of China, as amended in 2012, specifically adopted the specific provisions of Article 52, paragraph 2, to provide for the two forensics. According to the preliminary explanation of the bridging system, This provision breaks through the rules of evidence conversion that have been commonly used in academic circles and judicial practice, and formally endows administrative evidence with criminal evidence capacity in criminal judicial proceedings in the form prescribed by law. The new rules of high inspection and the interpretation of Supreme Law have made a more conservative interpretation of this provision, which generally establishes the rules of strict selection and application of verbal evidence and direct application of physical evidence. Because both the administrative law and the criminal procedure law have made the relatively general stipulation to the evidence type, and the slight difference, this causes the academic circles to explain the many kinds of evidence connotation and the extension produced many disputes, besides, Due to the fact that the extension of "administrative subject" has not been clearly explained by the judicial interpretation, the concept of "administrative subject" is used in a single stroke, which leads to a great controversy in academic circles about the subject of connection in the text. The word "etc" that appears in the interpretation clause has also brought about a series of issues concerning strict interpretation and the dispute over expanding interpretation, that is, under the yardstick of procedural justice, The current legal provisions and judicial interpretations have not solved the problem of evidence convergence well, and the types and scope of evidence need to be further clearly defined, and the scope of the types of evidence should be appropriately expanded. In order to achieve the purpose of the law provisions and judicial practice of the benign combination. Furthermore, against the background of the current trend of corruption and corruption in our country, the legality of discipline inspection and supervision departments as the subject of case handling needs to be further discussed, and when a special case of violation of law and discipline is transformed into a crime of corruption and bribery, It is an urgent problem for academic circles to apply the two evidential convergence rules and how to apply them to the greatest extent to achieve the effect of fighting corruption. Finally, the author thinks that after clarifying the legal basis of administrative evidence used in criminal judicial proceedings, it is necessary for us to perfect the use of administrative evidence in criminal proceedings. Only in this way, can the two laws really link up effectively. Evidence can better serve the detection of related cases.
【学位授予单位】：山东大学
【学位级别】：硕士
【学位授予年份】：2014
【分类号】：D925.2;D922.1

【参考文献】