证明标准的经济学分析

发布时间：2018-07-16 17:39

【摘要】：尽管我国最新修订的《刑事诉讼法》正式将"排除合理怀疑"作为证明标准,但我国法学界对如何设定证明标准仍存在较大争论,如最高法院沈德咏副院长"宁可错放、也不可错判"的观点引起的巨大争议。本文采用法经济学的分析框架,详细阐述了证明标准的设定应使行政成本和错误成本之和最小化,并比较分析了刑事、民事和行政诉讼的证明标准。国内对证明标准的传统法学分析在系统一致性、全面性和可解释性上存在不足,而法经济学的比较分析可以弥补上述不足,并提出被传统法学分析忽视但却影响证明标准设定的一个极为重要的因素——举证责任人为达到证明标准的要求需付出的成本,即行政成本。将该分析框架运用到最高院公报案例廖宗荣诉交警案中,可以得到不同于原判决的新结论,即该案证明标准可以进一步提高,法院有充分理由判交警败诉。
[Abstract]:Although "beyond reasonable doubt" is formally regarded as the standard of proof in the newly revised Criminal procedure Law of China, there is still a great debate in the legal circles of our country on how to set the standard of proof, for example, the vice president of Shen Deyong of the Supreme Court would rather misplace it. Nor should it be wrongly judged. "the argument has caused a great deal of controversy." Using the framework of law and economics, this paper expounds in detail that the establishment of standard of proof should minimize the sum of administrative cost and wrong cost, and compares and analyzes the standard of proof of criminal, civil and administrative proceedings. The traditional legal analysis of the standard of proof is deficient in systematic consistency, comprehensiveness and interpretability, but the comparative analysis of law and economics can make up for the above deficiencies. It also puts forward an extremely important factor which is ignored by the traditional legal analysis but affects the setting of the standard of proof-the cost that the person responsible for proof has to pay in order to meet the requirements of the standard of proof, that is, the administrative cost. Applying this analysis frame to the case of Liao Zongrong v. Traffic Police in the Supreme Court Bulletin case, we can get a new conclusion which is different from the original judgment, that is, the standard of proof in this case can be further improved, and the court has good reason to decide that the traffic policeman lost the case.
【作者单位】：中国政法大学法与经济学研究中心;
【基金】：中国政法大学法与经济学青年创新团队资助项目的阶段性成果
【分类号】：D925.2

【参考文献】