论民事诉讼中的悬赏取证
发布时间:2018-10-16 19:18
【摘要】:取证难导致悬赏取证在司法实践中时有发生,尤其是在刑事诉讼和行政执法领域。但在民事诉讼中,程序法对此未作规定。立法的空白导致了理论争议和民事司法实践的混乱。准确认定民事诉讼中悬赏证据的证据效力成为关键。具体来说,在证据能力方面,,悬赏证据不属于需要排除的民事非法证据,因此它具有证据能力。在证明力方面,针对不同的悬赏证据应采取不同的证明力审查标准。对于悬赏获取的言词证据,其证明力的审查应相对严于普通证据,建议规定悬赏的证人必须出庭作证而不得提交书面证言;对于悬赏获取的实物证据,其证明力的审查可借鉴刑事诉讼中的排除合理怀疑标准,只有确信其真实性才能作为最终的定案依据。建议在民事程序法的相关条文中增加悬赏证据的认证规则。另外,为了明确悬赏取证的外延,有必要将其与私力救济、收买证人和陷阱取证区分开来。民事程序法在今后的修改中可以从当事人悬赏取证的适用范围、悬赏信息的发布、对悬赏证据的质证和认证、悬赏金的数额与承担等方面,对民事悬赏取证予以规制,从而更好地完善我国的民事悬赏取证制度。
[Abstract]:The difficulty of obtaining evidence leads to reward evidence in judicial practice, especially in the field of criminal procedure and administrative law enforcement. But in the civil action, the procedural law does not make the stipulation to this. The blank legislation leads to theoretical disputes and confusion in civil judicial practice. Accurate confirmation of the effectiveness of reward evidence in civil proceedings becomes the key. Specifically speaking, in the aspect of evidence capacity, reward evidence does not belong to civil illegal evidence that needs to be excluded, so it has evidence capacity. In the aspect of proof, different standards of proof should be adopted for different reward evidence. For verbal evidence obtained with a reward, the examination of its evidentiary power should be relatively strict than that of ordinary evidence. It is suggested that a witness with a reward should be required to testify in court rather than to submit written testimony; for physical evidence obtained with a reward, The examination of its proof power can draw lessons from the reasonable doubt standard in the criminal procedure, and it can be regarded as the final decision basis only if it is sure of its authenticity. It is suggested that the relevant provisions of the Civil procedure Law should include rules for the certification of reward evidence. In addition, in order to make clear the extension of reward evidence, it is necessary to distinguish it from private relief, bribe witness and trap evidence. In the future revision of the Civil procedure Law, the civil reward evidence can be regulated from the following aspects: the scope of application, the publication of the reward information, the cross-examination and authentication of the reward evidence, the amount and commitment of the reward money, etc. In order to better improve our civil reward evidence system.
【学位授予单位】:苏州大学
【学位级别】:硕士
【学位授予年份】:2014
【分类号】:D925.1
本文编号:2275378
[Abstract]:The difficulty of obtaining evidence leads to reward evidence in judicial practice, especially in the field of criminal procedure and administrative law enforcement. But in the civil action, the procedural law does not make the stipulation to this. The blank legislation leads to theoretical disputes and confusion in civil judicial practice. Accurate confirmation of the effectiveness of reward evidence in civil proceedings becomes the key. Specifically speaking, in the aspect of evidence capacity, reward evidence does not belong to civil illegal evidence that needs to be excluded, so it has evidence capacity. In the aspect of proof, different standards of proof should be adopted for different reward evidence. For verbal evidence obtained with a reward, the examination of its evidentiary power should be relatively strict than that of ordinary evidence. It is suggested that a witness with a reward should be required to testify in court rather than to submit written testimony; for physical evidence obtained with a reward, The examination of its proof power can draw lessons from the reasonable doubt standard in the criminal procedure, and it can be regarded as the final decision basis only if it is sure of its authenticity. It is suggested that the relevant provisions of the Civil procedure Law should include rules for the certification of reward evidence. In addition, in order to make clear the extension of reward evidence, it is necessary to distinguish it from private relief, bribe witness and trap evidence. In the future revision of the Civil procedure Law, the civil reward evidence can be regulated from the following aspects: the scope of application, the publication of the reward information, the cross-examination and authentication of the reward evidence, the amount and commitment of the reward money, etc. In order to better improve our civil reward evidence system.
【学位授予单位】:苏州大学
【学位级别】:硕士
【学位授予年份】:2014
【分类号】:D925.1
【参考文献】
相关期刊论文 前10条
1 张晶;卢军;;刑事悬赏:国家公权的软肋?[J];法律适用;2006年04期
2 李浩;民事诉讼非法证据排除规则探析[J];法学评论;2002年06期
3 汤维建;民事诉讼非法证据排除规则刍议[J];法学;2004年05期
4 虞浔;论我国刑事悬赏制度的构建[J];中国人民公安大学学报;2004年04期
5 李飞;;浅议悬赏证言的证据效力[J];广东广播电视大学学报;2007年02期
6 杨静;;我国民事诉讼中悬赏取证问题探讨[J];广西政法管理干部学院学报;2009年03期
7 刘海;;悬赏取证的证据效力[J];贵州社会主义学院学报;2008年03期
8 毕玉谦;;民事诉讼上的非法证据排除:理论学说与认定标准[J];证据科学;2012年04期
9 陈娴灵;;民事非法证据排除规则之商榷[J];河北法学;2007年06期
10 杨杰辉,董清林;悬赏作证是否可取[J];河南公安高等专科学校学报;2002年02期
本文编号:2275378
本文链接:https://www.wllwen.com/falvlunwen/susongfa/2275378.html