庭审实质化:一种证据调查方式的逻辑转变——以成都地区改革试点为样本的经验总结

发布时间：2018-06-12 11:24

本文选题：庭审实质化 + 证据调查方式　；参考：《中国刑事法杂志》2017年05期

【摘要】：庭审实质化改革试点中,"意外"的裁判结果不断出现,其产生的真实原因是直接言词的调查方式对书面调查方式的替代。证据调查方式变革的背后,是事实判断的逻辑转变。传统庭审调查的逻辑认为,侦查证据更加真实可信,而庭审实质化的逻辑则认为,侦查证据并不完全值得信赖,通过直接言词方式的调查、采用个别化的证据审查判断方法更容易查明案件事实真相。实践中,影响证据真实性的主要因素有三方面:人证的认知规律,提供证据主体的动机,以及侦查人员的取证方式。无论从哪方面因素看,认定侦查证据优于庭审证据的观点都难以成立,实质化的法庭调查相比传统的法庭调查更有利于查明案件事实真相。庭审实质化改革的本质是以实质真实观替代形式真实观,以审判卷宗替代侦查卷宗,从而摆脱侦查证据对审判的决定作用,使刑事程序真正从以侦查为中心转变为以审判为中心。
[Abstract]:In the trial of trial reform, the result of "unexpected" judgment appears constantly, and the real reason is the substitution of the way of direct words investigation to the way of written investigation. Behind the change of evidence investigation is the logical change of fact judgment. The logic of the traditional trial investigation holds that the investigative evidence is more truthful and credible, while the logic of the trial substance believes that the investigative evidence is not entirely trustworthy. It is easier to find out the truth of the case by individualized evidence review method. In practice, there are three main factors influencing the authenticity of evidence: the cognitive law of the witness, the motive of providing the main body of evidence, and the way of obtaining evidence by investigators. It is difficult to hold the view that the investigation evidence is superior to the trial evidence, and the substantial court investigation is more helpful than the traditional court investigation to find out the truth of the case. The essence of the reform of the essence of the trial is to replace the formal view of truth with the view of substantive truth, and to replace the investigation file with the trial file, so as to get rid of the decisive role of the investigative evidence in the trial. Make the criminal procedure really change from the investigation as the center to the trial as the center.
【作者单位】：四川大学法学院;
【分类号】：D925.2

【相似文献】