我国刑事诉讼非法言词证据排除制度研究

发布时间：2018-06-06 05:09

本文选题：非法言词证据 + 冤假错案　；参考：《郑州大学》2016年硕士论文

【摘要】：我国刑事诉讼中非法言词证据排除制度的确立,是国家司法民主化、文明化的反映,是尊重和保障人权的体现。但是,在实践中,由于人们根深蒂固的有罪推定诉讼理念,对有罪证据的排除无法接受,因此,我们面临着如何合理适用非法言词证据排除制度的问题。尽管言词证据在证据链中占据着举足轻重的地位,但实践中大量的冤假错案不得不使我们深思,证据的收集方式是否规范,是否符合正当法律程序的要求。因此,我国立法界开始重视言词证据的排除问题的研究。2010年,我国最高人民法院院、最高人民检察院、公安部、国家安全部和司法部联合共同颁布了《关于办理刑事案件排除非法证据若干问题的规定》,该规定的出台代表着我国开始以司法解释形式引入西方的非法言词证据排除制度。虽然该规定表达的比较模糊与粗糙,但却是我国法制史上的一大进步。在此基础上,2012年修改的《刑事诉讼法》则正式以立法的形式确定了非法言词证据排除制度。文章将以非法言词证据排除制度为核心进行阐述。介绍理论背景、相关概念辨析、域外代表国家对该制度的界定,通过考察域外发达国家在学术界和司法界的一些做法,指出我们的不足,例如,非法言词证据在立法中对“非法手段”列举不够详尽、对司法实践中存在多种形式的非法证据没有合理的界定、在诉讼理念上与国外非法言词证据发达国家存在差异等一系列问题。因此,应当以我国目前的立法现状与司法实践为出发点,分析阻碍我国非法言词证据排除制度践行的原因,如:有罪推定的不利影响、程序意识的欠缺、办案压力的推动、如实供述义务的不利影响以及检察制度存在的缺陷等。进而,通过介绍域外几个代表国家现有的立法制度以及司法实践中的做法,借鉴他国的有利经验,以期对我国的非法言词证据制度进行立法上与司法上的完善,使我国非法言词证据排除制度可以发挥应有价值,从根源上杜绝冤假错案,维护司法权威,真正做到保障人权。
[Abstract]:The establishment of the exclusionary system of illegal verbal evidence in criminal proceedings in our country is a reflection of the democratization and civilization of the country's judicature and the embodiment of respecting and protecting human rights. However, in practice, because of the deep-rooted presumption of guilt litigation concept, the exclusion of guilt evidence can not be accepted, so we are faced with the problem of how to reasonably apply the exclusion system of illegal verbal evidence. Although verbal evidence plays an important role in the chain of evidence, a large number of false and false cases in practice have to make us ponder over whether the collection of evidence is standard or not, and whether it conforms to the requirements of due process of law. Therefore, the legislative circle of our country has begun to attach importance to the study of the exclusion of verbal evidence. In 2010, the Supreme people's Court, the Supreme people's Procuratorate, the Ministry of Public Security, The Ministry of National Security and the Ministry of Justice jointly promulgated the regulations on the exclusion of illegal evidence in criminal cases, which means that our country began to introduce the system of exclusion of illegal verbal evidence in the form of judicial interpretation into the West. Although the expression of this regulation is vague and rough, it is a great progress in the legal history of our country. On this basis, the Criminal procedure Law, which was amended in 2012, formally established the exclusion system of illegal verbal evidence in the form of legislation. The article will take the illegal words evidence exclusion system as the core carries on the elaboration. This paper introduces the theoretical background, relevant concepts, the definition of the system on behalf of foreign countries, and points out our shortcomings by examining some practices of foreign developed countries in the academic and judicial circles, for example, In the legislation, illegal verbal evidence is not detailed enough to enumerate "illegal means", and there is no reasonable definition of various forms of illegal evidence in judicial practice. There are a series of problems in litigation concept, such as differences between developed countries and foreign countries. Therefore, we should take the current legislative situation and judicial practice as the starting point to analyze the reasons that hinder the practice of the exclusionary system of illegal verbal evidence in our country, such as: the adverse effect of presumption of guilt, the lack of procedural consciousness, and the promotion of the pressure of handling cases. The adverse effect of truthful confession obligation and the defects of procuratorial system. Then, by introducing the existing legislative system and judicial practice of several foreign countries, and learning from the beneficial experience of other countries, the author hopes to perfect the evidence system of illegal words in our country in legislation and judicature. So that the system of the exclusion of illegal verbal evidence can play its due value, put an end to the root cause of miscarriage of justice, safeguard the judicial authority, and truly protect human rights.
【学位授予单位】：郑州大学
【学位级别】：硕士
【学位授予年份】：2016
【分类号】：D925.2

【相似文献】