犯罪论体系与刑事司法证明模式之形塑——海峡两岸刑事法之对话

发布时间：2018-10-26 08:21

【摘要】：1949年之后,大陆与台湾地区刑事法领域产生理论分野:前者学习苏俄,在犯罪论体系上,形成"四要件"的耦合式平面结构,具有强烈的入罪倾向,而在证明模式上,强调证据链条形式上的相互印证,表现出一种异化的"整体主义",缺乏认知融贯性的同时忽视原子分析;后者继受德日,在犯罪论体系上,形成"三阶层"的开放性递进结构,凸显类型化思维,而在证明模式上,注重对个别证据的审查判断,在证明模式的初始化过程中具有"原子主义"色彩,并有序地向"整体主义"过渡。作为约束实体认知与程序指引的"指导形象",犯罪论体系与刑事司法证明模式的不同选择,导致两岸刑事司法实践样态存在差异,刑法与刑事诉讼法交错适用之效果,也在法官认知过程中得到集中呈现。
[Abstract]:After 1949, there was a theoretical division between the criminal law field of the mainland and Taiwan: the former studied Soviet Russia, formed the "four elements" coupling plane structure in the criminal theory system, and had a strong tendency to incriminate, but in the mode of proof, Emphasizing the mutual confirmation in the form of the chain of evidence, showing a kind of dissimilation "holism", lacking the cognitive integration and neglecting the atomic analysis at the same time; The latter, following Germany and Japan, forms an open progressive structure of "three strata" in the criminal theory system, which highlights the type thinking, while in the mode of proof, it pays attention to the examination and judgment of individual evidence. It has the color of "atomism" and the transition to "holism" in the process of proving mode initialization. The "guiding image", which is the guide of the entity cognition and procedure, the different choice between the criminal theory system and the criminal judicial proof mode leads to the difference of the criminal judicial practice between the two sides of the Taiwan Strait, and the effect of the interlaced application of the criminal law and the criminal procedure law. Also in the judge's cognitive process has been centralized presentation.
【作者单位】：中国政法大学刑事司法学院;
【基金】：国家“2011计划”司法文明协同创新中心研究成果
【分类号】：D925.2

【相似文献】