刑事瑕疵证据补正规则研究

发布时间：2018-06-08 05:23

本文选题：瑕疵证据 + 补正　；参考：《西南政法大学》2014年硕士论文

【摘要】：“瑕疵证据”的概念首次出现在2010年颁布的两个《证据规定》当中，此前虽然也有学者进行讨论，但出现在立法规定中尚属首次。由于司法实践中存在相当数量的不规范取证行为，由此取得的这类证据虽然存在着法律上的瑕疵，但又不同于非法证据。这些证据的特点在于违法的轻微性，如果一律予以排除，显然不利于案件真实的发现。而“瑕疵证据”概念的提出，是刑事证据领域一个重要的理论创新，不仅实现了从证据可采信角度对证据类型的三分法，克服了将证据简单划分为合法证据与非法证据的缺陷，，而且确立了“可补正的排除规则”，从而可以使一些违法情节并不严重的证据合理发挥本身的证明价值。两个《证据规定》列举了可补正的瑕疵证据的范围，并对补正不能的后果进行了原则性规定。然而，无论是对瑕疵范围的界定，还是对补正程序的把握，司法实践中都存在随意性过大的问题。因此，对于这一规则的运用，应保持审慎的态度。本文以两个《证据规定》为基础，结合我国的司法实践，分析瑕疵证据的内涵及其存在的正当性基础，指出现有瑕疵证据补正存在的问题，并提出完善我国瑕疵证据补正机制的具体举措。本文分为四个部分：第一部分：对刑事瑕疵证据的基本理论进行解读，分析瑕疵证据和非法证据在内涵和外延上的区别，以及瑕疵证据在我国刑事诉讼当中的分布和类型。第二部分：对现行立法规定进行了分析，并从立法层面对我国的瑕疵证据补正存在的问题进行反思。第三部分：从法理依据和现实依据两个方面，分析瑕疵证据补正机制存在的正当性。第四部分：对如何构建我国刑事瑕疵证据补正的具体规则进行了探索。论述了刑事瑕疵证据补正应遵循的指导原则，从补正的主体、阶段、证明责任、补正方式、补正结果等几个方面提出解决路径。
[Abstract]:The concept of "defective evidence" appeared for the first time in the two "evidentiary regulations" issued in 2010, although some scholars discussed it before, but for the first time in the legislation. Due to the existence of a considerable number of non-standard evidence collection in judicial practice, this kind of evidence is different from illegal evidence, although it has legal flaws. The evidence is characterized by the minor nature of the violation, which, if excluded, is clearly detrimental to the true discovery of the case. The concept of "defective evidence" is an important theoretical innovation in the field of criminal evidence. It not only realizes the three-point method of evidence types from the point of view of admissibility of evidence, but also overcomes the defect of dividing evidence into legal evidence and illegal evidence. Moreover, it establishes "the rule of exclusion which can be supplemented and corrected", which can make the evidence of some illegal circumstances not serious to play its own proof value reasonably. The two rules of evidence enumerate the scope of defective evidence which can be corrected, and make a principle regulation on the consequences of impossibility of correction. However, there is too much randomness in judicial practice, whether it is the definition of defect scope or the grasp of correction procedure. Therefore, the application of this rule should be cautious. On the basis of two evidential regulations and the judicial practice of our country, this paper analyzes the connotation of defective evidence and its legitimate basis of existence, and points to the problems existing in the correction of defective evidence. And put forward the specific measures to perfect the defect evidence correction mechanism in our country. This paper is divided into four parts: the first part: to interpret the basic theory of criminal defect evidence, analyze the difference between defective evidence and illegal evidence in connotation and extension, And the distribution and types of defective evidence in criminal proceedings in China. Part two: the analysis of the current legislation, The third part: from the legal basis and the reality basis two aspects, The fourth part explores how to construct the concrete rules of correcting the defective evidence in our country. This paper discusses the guiding principles to be followed in the correction of criminal defective evidence, and puts forward the solutions from the main body, the stage, the burden of proof, the way of correction and the result of the correction.
【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】：D925.23

【参考文献】