电子证据司法运用问题研究

发布时间：2018-06-17 19:57

本文选题：电子证据 + 证据规则　；参考：《西南政法大学》2014年硕士论文

【摘要】：电子证据司法运用的规范化是电子证据理论和实务研究的重要目标之一，构建科学的电子证据司法运用制度规范，对于保障刑事案件的顺利办理、准确打击犯罪具有重要极其重要的现实意义。随着计算机犯罪案件和涉及电子证据刑事案件数量的增加，如何准确规范地运用电子证据成为当下司法实践的难题之一，然而我国电子证据司法运用的现状则是法律层面的研究远远落后于技术层面的研究。因此，应当借助电子证据被列为单独证据种类的契机，进一步完善电子证据的独立证据规则和运用规范，构建我国的电子证据的证据体系，以满足电子证据司法运用的要求。本文由四部分组成，共约3万字。第一部分主要针对电子证据司法运用中存在的基本问题进行分析。电子证据作为单独的法定种类已经被立法确立，但仍然有学者直接反对将电子证据划分为单独的证据种类。司法实践中由于配套规则的缺失，电子证据经常被转化为其他证据运用，这种不规范的做法使得电子证据失去了单独划分为证据种类的意义，也无法满足办理刑事案件的现实需要。同时，电子证据的出现也对理论上某些传统的证据规则，如“最佳证据规则”、“非法证据排除规则”和“证据鉴证规则”带来了极大的冲击，需要对这些规则重新审视。第二部分主要针对电子证据取证环节的问题进行分析。在取证主体问题上，我国的电子证据取证主体采用了双轨制，既包含侦查部门的取证，又包含电子技术专家取证，这种双轨制的做法可以满足电子证据的取证需要，但却存在科学技术取证思维和法律取证思维难以统一的问题，导致取证人员的取证水平受到限制。在取证程序问题上，由于电子证据的数字性和无形性，其取证程序与传统证据取证程序截然不同，传统证据的取证程序无法适用于电子证据的取证程序，必须采用技术化的取证程序，包括计算机现场勘验、电子证据的固定与封存和电子证据检查等环节。第三部分主要针对电子证据的审查判断环节的问题进行分析。在电子证据鉴定问题上，目前我国电子证据鉴定机构多设立于公安机关和检察机关内部，他们掌握着大量的优质资源，电子证据鉴定人的准入资质没有统一性要求，所做出的鉴定意见结论简单，论证不足；另一方面，电子证据鉴定应有的中立客观性与现有条件下侦查依附性形成了种种矛盾，表现为鉴定人先入为主的有罪推定观念和辩护律师无法有效质证，这些矛盾导致电子证据的鉴定备受争议。在电子证据审查判断环节上，法官对于电子证据技术原理不了解，在电子证据审查判断中对于鉴定意见具有依赖性，导致法官对于证据真实性审查判断能力弱；另一方面，在电子证据与传统证据并存的情况下，法官更倾向于传统证据，或者对于电子证据加倍小心，电子证据的证明力被弱化。第四部分主要提出了电子证据司法运用规范化的完善建议。首先，，确立电子证据的特殊证据规则：1.电子证据对于最佳证据规则的冲击需要通过原件拟制规则予以补充；2.对电子证据的主体和程序予以规范，明确何种证据属于合法证据，何种证据属于非法证据予以排除,以此避免电子证据被转化运用等的不规范情形。其次，对电子证据取证主体资格统一化认证、取证程序规范化操作和取证对象法律确认，构建统一规范的电子证据取证制度，以保证电子证据取证环节的技术层面和法律层面的双重规范。再次，对鉴定资源优化配置，鉴定人员规范化管理以及鉴定文书实质专业化设计，构建能够辅助电子证据的审查判断的独立鉴定体制，以此将电子证据司法运用纳入规范化的轨道。
[Abstract]:The standardization of the judicial application of electronic evidence is one of the important goals of the theoretical and practical research of electronic evidence. It is of important and extremely important practical significance to establish a scientific system of judicial application of electronic evidence for the protection of criminal cases and to combat crime accurately. With the increase of the number of cases, how to correctly and standardize the use of electronic evidence has become one of the difficult problems in judicial practice. However, the current situation of the judicial application of electronic evidence in China is far behind the technical level. Therefore, the electronic evidence should be listed as an opportunity for the type of separate evidence to further improve the electronics. The independent evidence rules and application norms of evidence should be used to construct the evidence system of electronic evidence in China to meet the requirements of judicial application of electronic evidence.
This article is composed of four parts, with a total of about 3 thousand words.
The first part mainly focuses on the analysis of the basic problems in the judicial application of electronic evidence. As a separate legal category, electronic evidence has been established by legislation. However, some scholars are still directly opposed to dividing electronic evidence into separate types of evidence. In judicial practice, electronic evidence is often converted to it because of the lack of supporting rules. With the use of evidence, this nonstandard practice makes electronic evidence lost the meaning of a separate category of evidence and can not meet the practical needs of criminal cases. At the same time, the emergence of electronic evidence is also the evidence rules of some theoretical traditions, such as "the best evidence rule", "the exclusionary rule of illegal evidence" and "evidence". The rule of evidence has brought great impact and needs to be re examined.
The second part mainly focuses on the analysis of the problems of electronic evidence forensics. On the subject of evidence collection, the subject of electronic evidence forensics in our country adopts the double track system, which includes both the forensics of the investigative department and the forensics of electronic technical experts. This double track system can be full of the need of forensics of electronic evidence, but there is a scientific technique. It is difficult to unify the thinking of forensic forensics and legal forensics, which leads to the limitation of the level of forensics. On the issue of forensics, the procedure of forensics is very different from that of the traditional evidence collection procedure because of the digital and intangible of electronic evidence, and the procedure of obtaining evidence from the traditional evidence can not be applied to the forensic procedure of electronic evidence. We must adopt a technological forensics procedure, including computer site inspection, electronic evidence fixation and storage, and electronic evidence inspection.
The third part mainly focuses on the analysis of the examination and judgment of the electronic evidence. On the issue of electronic evidence identification, the electronic evidence identification institutions in our country are mostly established within the public security organs and the procuratorial organs. They have a large number of high-quality resources, and the qualification of the electronic evidence Appraisers has no unified requirements and has been made. On the other hand, there are various contradictions between the neutral objectivity of the identification of electronic evidence and the attachment of investigation under the existing conditions, which is manifested by the presumption of guilt and the inability of the defense lawyers to prove effectively. These contradictions lead to the controversy of the identification of electronic evidence. According to the review and judgment, the judge is not aware of the principle of electronic evidence technology and is dependent on the evaluation of electronic evidence, which leads to the judge's weak ability to judge the truth of evidence. On the other hand, the judge is more inclined to the traditional evidence in the case of the coexistence of the electronic evidence and the traditional evidence. Electronic evidence is doubly careful, and the power of proof of electronic evidence is weakened.
The fourth part mainly puts forward the perfect suggestions for the standardization of the judicial application of electronic evidence. First, establish the special evidence rule of electronic evidence: 1. the impact of the electronic evidence on the best evidence rules should be supplemented by the original rule making rules; 2. to standardize the subject and procedure of the electronic evidence, and to clarify what evidence belongs to the legal certificate. According to the evidence, what kind of evidence belongs to the exclusion of illegal evidence in order to avoid the unstandardized situation of the conversion of electronic evidence. Secondly, the unified authentication of the subject qualification of electronic evidence forensics, the standardization operation of forensics and the legal confirmation of forensic objects, and the establishment of a unified and standardized electronic evidence evidence collection system, in order to guarantee the link of electronic evidence evidence. The technical level and the legal level of the dual norms. Again, the optimal allocation of identification resources, the standardized management of the appraisers and the substantive professionalization of the identification documents, and the establishment of an independent identification system that can assist in the examination and judgment of electronic evidence, in order to bring the judicial transport of electronic evidence into a standardized track.
【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】：D915.13

【参考文献】