论量刑证据的可采性

发布时间：2018-06-25 20:01

本文选题：量刑 + 定罪　；参考：《学习论坛》2013年09期

【摘要】：在定罪程序中,必须严格遵守的许多证据规则,在量刑程序中可以被突破。在美国,《美国联邦量刑指南》和相关判例明确认可了非法证据、品格证据和传闻证据在量刑程序中的可采性;我国澳门地区制定的《刑事诉讼法》明确规定了意见证据在量刑程序中的可采性。我国《刑事诉讼法》已经确立了非法证据排除规则和意见证据规则,其既适用于定罪,又适用于量刑;我国《刑事诉讼法》尚没有确立品格证据规则和传闻证据规则。在相对独立的量刑程序的背景下,我国《刑事诉讼法》应当明确非法证据和意见证据在量刑程序中具有可采性;继续坚持品格证据和传闻证据在量刑程序中的可采性。在我国,通过裁判文书说理制度能够在一定程度上避免量刑程序中的非法证据、品格证据、传闻证据和意见证据对被告人定罪产生不利影响。
[Abstract]:In the procedure of conviction, many rules of evidence must be strictly observed, which can be broken through in the procedure of sentencing. In the United States, the Federal sentencing Guide and relevant jurisprudence explicitly recognize the admissibility of illegal evidence, character evidence and hearsay evidence in sentencing procedures; The Criminal procedure Law of Macao clearly stipulates the admissibility of opinion evidence in sentencing procedure. China's Criminal procedure Law has established the rule of excluding illegal evidence and the rule of opinion evidence, which is applicable to both conviction and sentencing, and the Code of Criminal procedure of China has not yet established the rules of character evidence and hearsay evidence. Under the background of relatively independent sentencing procedure, our country's Criminal procedure Law should make clear that illegal evidence and opinion evidence are admissible in sentencing procedure, and continue to insist on the admissibility of character evidence and hearsay evidence in sentencing procedure. In our country, the reasoning system of judgment documents can to some extent avoid illegal evidence, character evidence, hearsay evidence and opinion evidence in sentencing procedure.
【作者单位】：西南政法大学法学院;
【基金】：2011年度教育部人文社会科学研究一般项目“量刑程序中的证据和证明问题研究”(11YJA820108)的阶段性成果
【分类号】：D925.2

【参考文献】