论刑事言词证据证明力的评断

发布时间：2018-06-20 06:27

本文选题：刑事言词证据 + 证明力　；参考：《辽宁大学》2014年硕士论文

【摘要】：刑事言词证据专指那些应用于刑事诉讼中的言词证据，具体包括被告人口供、被害人陈述、证人证言和鉴定意见四类。由于刑事言词证据所反映的案件事实的信息是由人的陈述表达出来的，因此人们可以主动的提供相关的案件情况，从而对案件事实起到直接、真切、生动的证明作用。然而，人的表述具有一定的主观性，受各种因素影响，这种表述可能会出现失实的情况，若不能加以正确的判断，很容易导致错误认定案件事实的发生，从而损害司法公正，因此，正确的评价和判断刑事言词证据的证明力是法官在认证环节至关重要的任务，其对于案件事实的准确认定具有重大的意义。受马克思哲学理论中“具体问题具体分析”、“实事求是”的观点影响，长期以来我国司法实践一直坚持对于证据的审查和判断必须结合具体案情，而不能形成一套较为系统和完善的证据规则体系的观点，但是随着司法改革的不断深入，我国司法实务界却越来越倾向于制定一些评断证据证明力的具体准则，，用以规制法官的认证行为。然而，证据法学领域内的一些学者却并不认为这是正确的做法，他们对最高人民法院颁布的关于证据的司法解释中对证明力的评断规定进行了猛烈的抨击，同时，他们大力倡导大陆法系的“自由心证制度”于我国刑事审判的适用，并且进一步认为法官要想准确地评断证明力法律必须确立一系列旨在限制证据能力的证据规则，提高证据的“准入门槛”，保证评断的正确性。基于这样的背景，本文以刑事言词证据为视角，对证据证明力的评断问题加以研究：首先，本文系统阐述了关于证据证明力的基础理论，厘清证明力与其他证据法学概念的界限，分析并且阐述评断证明力行为的基本要素，以形成对证据的证明力及其评断的基本认识；其次，文章结合证据法理论中对刑事言词证据的认识和一些审判实践经验，分析并总结出评断刑事言词证据证明力的一般标准；最后，以这些标准为基础，创设出一些评断刑事言词证据证明力的具体规则，以期法官对证据证明力的评断在规则的指引下进行。本文认为，无论是尝试寻找评断证据证明力所要遵循的一般准则，还是以法律形式确定评断证据证明力的操作规范，最为关键的是我国证据法学理论界必须进行研究思维上的转变，一方面，必须扯下“具体问题具体分析”的空洞旗号，承认评断证据证明力中的共同规律的存在；另一方面，在提倡“自由心证”的基础上，必须意识到其不足之处，不能使“自由心证”绝对化，从而使它变成另一种模式的“具体问题具体分析”。在评断证据证明力的问题上应当坚持规则和自由裁量相结合的模式，以准确的认定案件事实。
[Abstract]:Criminal verbal evidence refers to the verbal evidence used in criminal proceedings, including the defendant's confession, the victim's statement, the witness's testimony and the expert opinion. Because the information of the fact of the case reflected by the evidence of criminal speech is expressed by the statement of the person, people can actively provide the relevant case information, thus the fact of the case plays a direct, true and vivid role in proving the case. However, the expression of human beings is subjective and affected by various factors, which may lead to misrepresentation. If it cannot be judged correctly, it will easily lead to the false identification of the facts of the case and thus impair the judicial justice. Therefore, it is a crucial task for judges to correctly evaluate and judge the proof power of criminal verbal evidence, which is of great significance to the accurate identification of the facts of the case. Influenced by the viewpoint of "concrete problem analysis" and "seeking truth from facts" in Marxist philosophical theory, our judicial practice has long insisted that the examination and judgment of evidence must be combined with the concrete case. However, with the deepening of the judicial reform, the judicial practice of our country is more and more inclined to make some concrete criteria to judge the power of proof of evidence. To regulate the authentication of judges. However, some scholars in the field of evidentiary law do not think this is the correct practice, they have made a fierce attack on the rules of judgment on the power of proof promulgated by the Supreme people's Court in the judicial interpretation of evidence, and at the same time, They strongly advocated the application of the "free evidence system" in the civil law system in our country's criminal trial, and further believed that in order to accurately judge the power of proof law, judges must establish a series of evidentiary rules aimed at restricting the ability of evidence. Raise the "entry threshold" of evidence to ensure the correctness of the judgment. Based on this background, this paper studies the judgment of evidence proof from the perspective of criminal evidence. Firstly, this paper systematically expounds the basic theory of evidence proof. Clarify the boundary between the force of proof and other concepts of evidence law, analyze and expound the basic elements of the act of judging the force of proof, in order to form a basic understanding of the power of proof and its judgment; secondly, This paper analyzes and summarizes the general standards for judging the power of proof of criminal speech evidence based on the understanding of the evidence of criminal words in the theory of evidence law and some practical experience in the trial, and finally, on the basis of these standards, Some concrete rules are created to judge the evidential power of criminal words, so that the judge's judgment on the evidentiary power can be carried out under the guidance of the rules. This paper holds that, whether it is the general criterion to be followed in trying to find the evidentiary power to judge the evidence, or the operational criterion for determining the evidentiary power of the judging evidence in the form of law, The most important thing is that the theoretical circle of evidence law in our country must change its research thinking. On the one hand, it must tear down the empty banner of "concrete analysis of concrete problems", and admit the existence of common laws in the power of judging evidence proof; on the other hand, On the basis of advocating "free heart syndrome", it is necessary to realize its inadequacies and not to make "free heart syndrome" absolute, thus turning it into "concrete problem analysis" of another mode. In judging the proof of evidence, we should stick to the combination of rules and discretion in order to accurately identify the facts of the case.
【学位授予单位】：辽宁大学
【学位级别】：硕士
【学位授予年份】：2014
【分类号】：D925.23

【参考文献】