“一对一”强奸案中印证模式的适用问题研究

发布时间：2018-09-18 17:04

【摘要】：“一对一”强奸案件的证据采信问题一直是司法实践中的难题，为解决这一难题，我国法学界也进行了诸多讨论，而导致我国此类案件难以认定的原因在于：一方面，“一对一”强奸案自身的特殊性决定了该类案件的认定难度，一是在案证据匮乏，且多为具有不稳定性的言词证据，二是在是否违背妇女意志的证明上较其他“一对一”案件更加复杂。另一方面，实践中，我国司法机关采取的是一种相互印证的证明模式，由于过分强调印证，使得“一对一”案件成为诉讼证明上的难题，这种高标准的证明模式在“一对一”强奸案的适用中更是暴露出了许多不足之处，因此，我们需要对突破此类案件的审理难题给予思考。本文包括引言、正文和结语三个部分，正文一共约2.1万字。第一部分先对“一对一”强奸案的特点作了初步说明，其次结合对公诉部门4位检察官和刑事审判庭4位法官的访谈，将在实务中认定此类案件的具体思路予以整理。第二部分是对印证模式在“一对一”强奸案中的适用加以分析。首先阐释了印证模式的特点、实质及自身优势，，并与自由心证制度作了区分。其次通过具体的案例来说明实务中是如何采信此类案件的证据并予以认定的。第三部分着重分析了印证模式在“一对一”强奸案适用中存在的不足。首先，印证模式强调证据间的客观印证，追求证据数量的简单堆砌，而不注重证据之间的内在联系，导致形成很高的证明标准，使实践中有相当数量的“一对一”强奸案件因印证性不够，而不能达到证据确实充分的证明标准。其次，针对此类案件的特殊性，我国司法人员在审理“一对一”强奸案时必不可少的会适用“经验法则”，即使在我国相互印证模式下，法官也必须先对每个证据的真实性作出判断，而在对各个证据的三性进行分析和评判时，便会自觉或不自觉的运用到“经验法则”。但由于个体认识的差异性以及“经验法则”的非规范化，导致实务中司法人员对“经验法则”的使用仍然存在一定的危险。再次，“一对一”强奸案直接证据相互对立，间接证据匮乏，为了查明事实，法官当然希望到案的证据越多越好，但由于无法切实履行直接言词审理，证人、被害人出庭率极低，导致大量传闻证据进入法庭，损害了当事人的对质权，也不利于事实真相的发现。最后，在新刑诉法的贯彻实施下，人权保障原则和不得强迫自证其罪原则的确立，一系列保障人权防止刑讯逼供等非法取证措施的强化，使印证体系的适用面临着巨大的挑战。第四部分则是对“一对一”强奸案证明模式的进一步思考。通过上文的分析，提出自己的观点，重构我国自由心证制度，全面落实自由心证的证明模式，借鉴其合理因素，使相互印证仅仅成为证明方法之一，而不再是证明模式、办案模式。并提出一些配套制度的改进，如提高法官办案素质、心证公开；进一步推进司法独立；规范经验法则的运用；坚持直接言词原则，强化证人、被害人出庭作证等，为自由心证制度的合理运用提供一个良好的环境和条件。
[Abstract]:The problem of evidence acceptance in "one-to-one" rape cases has always been a difficult problem in judicial practice. To solve this problem, many discussions have been carried out in the legal circles of our country. The reasons why it is difficult to identify such cases are as follows: on the one hand, the particularity of "one-to-one" rape cases determines the difficulty of identifying such cases. On the other hand, in practice, the judicial organs of our country adopt a pattern of mutual confirmation, which makes "one-to-one" cases become litigation because of the excessive emphasis on confirmation. The difficult problem of proof, this high standard of proof mode in the "one-to-one" rape case is exposed in the application of many shortcomings, therefore, we need to break through the trial of such cases to give thought.
This article consists of three parts: introduction, text and conclusion, with a total of about 2.1 words.
The first part of the "one-to-one" rape case made a preliminary description of the characteristics, followed by the prosecution department of four prosecutors and four judges of the criminal trial court interviews, the practice of such cases will be identified in the specific ideas to be sorted out.
The second part is to analyze the application of the confirmation model in the "one-to-one" rape cases. Firstly, it explains the characteristics, essence and advantages of the confirmation model, and distinguishes it from the system of free evaluation of evidence. Secondly, it illustrates how to accept and identify the evidence of such cases through specific cases.
The third part focuses on the analysis of the shortcomings of the confirmation model in the application of "one-to-one" rape cases. First of all, the confirmation model emphasizes the objective confirmation between the evidence, seeks the simple stacking of the number of evidence, but does not pay attention to the internal links between the evidence, resulting in the formation of a high standard of proof, so that there is a considerable number of "one-to-one" in practice. Secondly, in view of the particularity of this kind of cases, the judicial personnel in our country will be indispensable to apply the "rule of experience" in the trial of "one-to-one" rape cases. Even in the mode of mutual verification in our country, the judge must first make the authenticity of each evidence. Judgement is made, and the "rule of experience" will be used consciously or unconsciously when analyzing and judging the three properties of each evidence. However, due to the difference of individual cognition and the non-standardization of the "rule of experience", there are still some dangers in the use of the "rule of experience" by judicial personnel in practice. "In rape cases, direct evidence is opposed to each other and indirect evidence is scarce. In order to find out the facts, the judges certainly hope that the more evidence in the case, the better. However, due to the failure to effectively carry out direct verbal trials, witnesses and victims appear in court at a very low rate, resulting in a large number of hearsay evidence into the court, undermining the right of the parties to pledge, and not conducive to the truth of the facts. Finally, with the implementation of the new Criminal Procedure Law, the establishment of the principles of human rights protection and the principle of not forcing self-incrimination, and the intensification of a series of measures to protect human rights against extorting confessions by torture, the application of the verification system is facing great challenges.
The fourth part is a further reflection on the "one-to-one" proof mode in rape cases. Through the analysis above, the author puts forward his own views, reconstructs the system of free evaluation of evidence in China, implements the proof mode of free evaluation of evidence in an all-round way, and uses its reasonable factors for reference, so that mutual verification is only one of the methods of proof, not the mode of proof and the mode of handling cases. And put forward some improvement of the supporting system, such as improving the quality of the judges handling cases, making the evidence public, further promoting judicial independence, standardizing the use of empirical rules, adhering to the principle of direct speech, strengthening witnesses, victims to testify in court and so on, to provide a good environment and conditions for the rational use of the system of free trial of evidence.
【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】