刑事诉讼证明标准失灵及其矫治

发布时间：2018-08-05 15:00

【摘要】：整个刑事诉讼，实际上就是控方收集证据、运用证据证明犯罪，辩方根据证明标准的要求对指控进行反驳，裁判者根据证明标准认定案件事实、判定被追诉人刑事责任的过程。在这个过程中，证明标准对诉讼各方尤其是拥有公权力的各方的证据收集、审查判断、综合运用起着至关重要的指引作用。一旦证明标准丧失对侦查机关应有的拘束力，取证就无法符合客观、全面、合法的要求，控方就无法完成证明责任，满足证明标准的要求。如果证明标准丧失对事实认定者的拘束力，事实认定活动就会像脱缰的野马，失去羁绊，定罪量刑的公正性就丧失了事实基础。刑事诉讼证明标准失灵，既不利于打击犯罪，也不利于保障人权。研究刑事证明标准对侦查、审查逮捕、审查起诉、审判活动的应有作用（即刑事证明标准的拘束力），揭示刑事证明标准没有发挥对侦查、审查逮捕、审查起诉、审判应有的拘束力（即证明标准失灵）的表现，分析其原因，有利于矫治刑事证明标准失灵，最终找到让证明标准发挥其拘束力的办法，从而保证事实认定的正确性，达到打击犯罪与保障人权并重的目的。本文除引言外，正文共分为四个部分，约四万余字。第一部分研究刑事证明标准拘束力的概念、实现依据和发挥前提。所谓刑事证明标准的拘束力，是指刑事诉讼证明标准对各诉讼主体的诉讼行为所应有的约束作用，其核心是定罪量刑的证明标准对侦查、起诉、审判所应有的约束作用。这种约束作用的前提是：侦查机关应当按照证明标准的要求客观、全面、合法地收集证据，移送审查起诉，检察机关应当按照证明标准的要求审查提起公诉，法院按照证明标准的要求作出裁判。刑事证明标准的拘束力实现拘束力的依据在于法律对各机关在刑事诉讼中的职能分配，通过诉讼结构延伸至诉讼各个阶段。从具体的事实认定过程中看，证明标准拘束力的产生一方面在于保持事实认定者的理性状态，另一方面在于保证其心证的合理性。无论法官还是检察官，都必须摒弃外界因素的影响，以理性的思维，通过正确的心证方式实现对案件事实的认定。第二部分揭示刑事司法实践中的证明标准失灵的表现。刑事证明标准失灵，是指它对侦查机关、检察机关、审判机关的诉讼行为没有发挥应有的拘束力。它具体表现为：首先，就侦查机关（部门）而言，这表现为侦查机关（部门）不按照检察机关完成证明责任的要求客观、全面、合法地收集证据，，偏重对定罪证据的收集，忽略对量刑证据的收集，证据的全面性不足；对证据的合法性重视不够。其次，就检察机关而言，刑事证明标准失灵表现为检察机关在提起公诉时，对证据的合法性重视不足，不敢排除非法证据；对证据的全面性重视不足，偏重对定罪事实的证明，忽略对量刑事实的证明。最后，就审判机关而言，刑事证明标准失灵表现为审判机关对不符合定罪证明标准的案件，不是按照疑罪从无的原则进行处理，而是疑罪从有、从挂。第三部分剖析刑事证明标准失灵的原因。刑事证明标准失灵的原因是多方面的。首先，治罪型的诉讼模式致使刑事诉讼偏重惩罚犯罪，注重有罪事实忽略了无罪事实。其次，我国的刑事诉讼程序呈现“流水线”式的纵向结构，各个环节之间联系不紧密，需要侦查案卷对程序之间进行维系，因而形成了“侦查中心主义”的诉讼结构。再次，审前程序中的诉讼活动为侦查机关主导，检察机关对其监督十分有限，侦查活动无法有效地为公诉提供充分、合理的依据，“配合制约”的检警关系呈现出“配合大于制约”的现象。最后，法院的诉讼决策机制严重行政化，“亲历”的承办法官往往不能作出最后的事实认定，而要遵循领导的建议。整个刑事司法体系是以打击犯罪为主的严密结构，正当程序观念缺失。第四部分指出刑事证明标准实现拘束力的路径。要使证明标准发挥拘束力，首先，必须破除现有的治罪模式，改变惩罚犯罪的刑事诉讼目的，将实体真实与正当程序并重，为了提起对消极事实真实的注意，应当注重以正当程序实现之。其次，应当调整刑事诉讼的纵向结构，加强审判阶段的纠错功能，以消极实体真实的发现作为法院的职责，并在此基础上完善横向的三方诉讼结构。再次，应当理顺检警关系，审前程序要以公诉权为中心，建立侦诉协作的检警关系，并注重检察机关对侦查机关的单向制约。最后，改进诉讼决策机制，保证法院对外的独立地位，法院内部也要还权给合议庭，减少行政化的不当干预，建立以承办法官为中心的诉讼决策模式。
[Abstract]:In fact, the whole criminal procedure is the procedure that the prosecution collects evidence, uses evidence to prove the crime, the argument refutes the accusation according to the requirements of the standard of proof, and the referee determines the fact of the case according to the standard of proof and determines the criminal responsibility of the accused. In this process, the standard of proof is especially to the parties to the lawsuit, especially the parties with public power. The evidence collection, examination and judgment and comprehensive use play a vital guiding role. Once the standard is proved to be lost to the investigative authorities, it is impossible to meet the objective, comprehensive and legal requirements. The prosecution will not be able to fulfill the burden of proof and meet the requirements of the standard of proof. It will be like the runaway wild horse, lose the fetter, and the impartiality of conviction and sentencing will lose the foundation of the fact. The failure of the standard of proof of criminal procedure is not conducive to the fight against crime and the protection of human rights. The criminal proof standard does not display the performance of the investigation, the examination and arrest, the examination and prosecution, the trial and the trial, that is, the failure of the standard of proof, which is beneficial to the correction of the failure of the criminal proof standard, and finally finds the way to let the standard of proof play its binding force so as to ensure the correctness of the fact identification. The purpose of combating crime and guaranteeing human rights is equal.
In addition to the preface, the text is divided into four parts, about 40000 words.
The first part is to study the concept of criminal proof standard binding force, to realize the basis and to give full play to the premise. The binding force of the so-called criminal proof standard refers to the binding effect of the criminal procedure proof standard on the action of the various litigation subjects, and the core is the binding effect of the standard of proof of conviction and sentencing on the investigation, prosecution and trial. The premise of the restraining effect is that the investigative organ should objectively, comprehensively and legitimately collect the evidence in accordance with the requirements of the standard of proof. The procuratorial organ should review and prosecute the prosecution in accordance with the requirements of the standard of proof. The court shall make a referee according to the requirements of the standard of proof. The distribution of the functions of various organs in the criminal proceedings is extended to every stage of the lawsuit by the law. In the process of identifying the specific facts, it is proved that the generation of the standard binding force lies in maintaining the rational state of the factual identifier, on the other hand, to ensure the rationality of its evidence. We must abandon the influence of external factors, and realize the identification of the facts of a case through rational thinking and correct evidence.
The second part reveals the failure of the standard of proof in criminal judicial practice. The failure of the criminal proof standard means that it does not exert due restraint on the action of the investigative organs, the procuratorial organs and the judicial organs. It is manifested as the investigation organ (Department), which is not according to the procuratorial machine. The requirements for the completion of the burden of proof are objective, comprehensive and legitimate to collect evidence, pay more attention to the collection of evidence for convictions, ignore the collection of sentencing evidence, lack of comprehensiveness of evidence, and not pay enough attention to the legitimacy of the evidence. Secondly, in the case of procuratorial organs, the criminal proof standard is shown as the combination of the procuratorial organs when prosecuting the public prosecution. The legal importance is insufficient, and the illegal evidence is not ruled out; the comprehensive attention to the evidence is insufficient, the proof of the conviction of the conviction and the proof of the fact of the sentencing are overlooked. Finally, the failure of the criminal proof standard is shown by the judicial organs as the cases of the judicial organs that are not in conformity with the standard of conviction. The reason is to doubt the crime from the hang.
The third part analyzes the reasons for the failure of the criminal proof standard. The reasons for the failure of the standard of criminal proof are many aspects. First, the mode of the crime based litigation causes the criminal procedure to punish the crime, and pay attention to the fact that the crime is ignored. Secondly, the criminal procedure in our country presents a "pipeline" longitudinal structure and every link. If the connection is not close, it needs the investigation files to maintain the procedure between the procedures, thus forming the litigation structure of "investigation centralism". Again, the litigation activities in the pre trial procedure are dominated by the investigation organs, the procuratorial organs are very limited in supervision, and the investigation activities can not effectively provide the public prosecution with sufficient and reasonable basis, and "cooperate with the restriction". In the end, the judicial decision mechanism of the court is seriously administrative, and the "experienced" judges are often unable to make the final facts, but should follow the suggestions of the leadership. The whole criminal justice system is a strict structure against the crime as the main main and the lack of due process concept.
The fourth part points out the path of the criminal proof standard to realize the binding force. In order to make the standard of proof play a binding force, first of all, we must break the existing mode of crime, change the purpose of the criminal procedure of the punishment, and attach equal importance to the real and the due process. In order to bring the real attention to the negative facts, we should pay attention to the realization of the due process. Secondly, it should be realized. We should adjust the longitudinal structure of the criminal procedure, strengthen the error correction function of the trial stage, take the real discovery of the negative entity as the duty of the court, and improve the horizontal three party litigation structure on this basis. Again, we should straighten out the relationship between the prosecutor and the police, the pre trial procedure should focus on the right of public prosecution, establish the relationship between the prosecution and the police, and pay attention to the procuratorial work. In the end, we should improve the decision-making mechanism of the litigation and ensure the independence of the court to ensure the independence of the court. The court should also give the right to the collegial panel to reduce the improper intervention of the administration and establish a lawsuit decision model which takes the judges as the center.
【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】：D925.2

【参考文献】