论刑事诉讼中的严格证明
发布时间：2018-11-16 13:25
【摘要】：严格证明法则起源于德国,随后传入日本及我国台湾地区,现在已成为多数大陆法系国家（地区）刑事证明理论的重要组成部分。证明活动决定证明质量,要求越是严格的证明活动,其产生的证明结果也越可靠。对于刑事案件来说,大多数待证事实与案件认定结果及被告人的权益紧密相关,对于这些事实,唯有运用严格证明规则来规制证明活动,案件事实的认定才能更加准确,被告人的合法权益才能获得有效的保障。近年来,多起重大冤假错案暴露出我国刑事诉讼在法庭审理阶段证据调查和认定案件事实方面的不足,党和国家（地区）司法机关高度重视这一问题,并发起了以审判为中心的诉讼制度改革,希望全面贯彻证据裁判规则,保证庭审在查明事实、认定证据、保护诉权、公正裁判中发挥决定性作用。严格证明的理念与价值既昭示了现代司法追求法治程序的潮流,又符合当下中国司法改革的需求。从诉讼模式及司法传统来看,我国与大陆法系也比较接近,在我国刑事诉讼中引入严格证明规则具有可行性。本文力图通过阐述、分析德国、日本、台湾地区严格证明理论的内容及相互间的异同,深入探知严格证明的精髓,为我国学习、引入严格证明提供借鉴。本文的主体部分共分四章。第一章,严格证明的基本原理。该章主要介绍德国、日本及台湾地区关于严格证明概念的界定,严格证明理论与自由证明、证据禁止和自由心证的关系,以及严格证明在发现实体真实、保障人权、提高诉讼效率方面的作用。第二章,严格证明的证据方法。严格证明的证据方法是指法定证据方法,在大陆法系国家（地区）,一般是指被告、证人、鉴定人、勘验和文书证件这五类。由于我国证据概念限定在“证据材料说”,还没有融入“证据方法”的理念,因此《刑事诉讼法》中证据种类的划分存在既不能概括所有形式的证据资料,同时也不利于进行有效的证据调查的弊端。第三章,严格证明的证据调查程序。本章先分别介绍、分析德国、日本、台湾地区严格证明下证据调查程序所遵守的共同原则,即言词审理原则、直接审理原则和公开审理原则,然后提出我国应明确直接言词原则,完善相关配套措施,提高当庭宣判比例等建议,以克服当下法庭证据调查程序中举证、质证和认证的虚化问题。第四章,严格证明的适用对象。合理界定严格证明与自由证明适用对象范围关乎诉讼公正及诉讼效率的实现。该章首先对比分析德国、日本及台湾地区界定严格证明与自由证明适用范围的具体做法及理由,然后梳理出国内学者关于此问题的不同意见并陈述各自利弊,最后提出树立维护实体公正、有利于被告人及与证明责任负担相适应的划分原则以及严格证明具体适用对象的范围。
[Abstract]:The strict proof law originated in Germany and then introduced to Japan and Taiwan. Now it has become an important part of the criminal proof theory in most civil law countries (regions). Proof activity determines the quality of proof, and the more strict proof activity is required, the more reliable the proof result is. For criminal cases, most of the facts to be proved are closely related to the result of the case identification and the rights and interests of the defendant. For these facts, only the strict rules of proof can be used to regulate the proof activities, and the determination of the facts of the case can be more accurate. Only the legal rights and interests of the defendant can be effectively protected. In recent years, a number of major cases of miscarriage of justice have exposed the deficiencies in the investigation of evidence and the determination of the facts of the case in the criminal proceedings in our country. The judicial organs of the Party and the state (or region) attach great importance to this issue. The author also initiated the reform of the litigation system centered on the trial, hoping to carry out the rules of evidence judgment in an all-round way, and to ensure that the trial plays a decisive role in ascertaining the facts, confirming the evidence, protecting the right of action, and fair adjudication. The concept and value of strict proof not only show the trend of modern judicial pursuit of the rule of law, but also meet the needs of the current judicial reform in China. From the point of view of litigation mode and judicial tradition, our country is close to civil law system, and it is feasible to introduce strict rules of proof in our criminal procedure. This paper tries to analyze the contents and similarities and differences of strict proof theory in Germany, Japan and Taiwan, and to explore the essence of strict proof in order to provide reference for our country to study and introduce strict proof. The main part of this paper is divided into four chapters. Chapter one, the basic principle of strict proof. This chapter mainly introduces the definition of the concept of strict proof in Germany, Japan and Taiwan, the relationship between strict proof theory and free proof, the relationship between evidence prohibition and free evidence, and the strict proof in the discovery of entity truth and the protection of human rights. The role of improving the efficiency of litigation. Chapter two, evidence method of strict proof. The proof method of strict proof is to point to the legal evidence method, in the civil law system country (area), generally refer to the defendant, witness, expert, examine and document these five kinds. Since the concept of evidence in our country is limited to "theory of evidence material" and has not been incorporated into the concept of "method of evidence", the classification of evidence types in Criminal procedure Law cannot generalize all forms of evidence material. At the same time, it is not conducive to the drawbacks of effective evidence investigation. Chapter III, strictly proven evidence investigation procedures. This chapter first introduces and analyzes the common principles of evidence investigation procedure strictly proved by Germany, Japan and Taiwan, that is, the principle of word trial, the principle of direct trial and the principle of public hearing. Then put forward that our country should clear the principle of direct words, improve the relevant supporting measures, improve the proportion of sentencing in court, and so on, in order to overcome the current court evidence investigation procedure, cross-examination and authentication of the problem of vanity. Chapter four, the object of strict proof. Reasonable definition of the scope of application of strict proof and free proof is related to the justice of litigation and the realization of litigation efficiency. This chapter first compares and analyzes the specific practices and reasons for defining the scope of application of strict proof and free proof in Germany, Japan and Taiwan, and then combs out the different opinions of domestic scholars on this issue and states their respective advantages and disadvantages. Finally, the author puts forward the principle of dividing the defendant and the burden of proof, and the scope of strict proof of the specific applicable object.
【学位授予单位】：南京师范大学
【学位级别】：硕士
【学位授予年份】：2017
【分类号】：D925.2
本文编号：2335630
[Abstract]:The strict proof law originated in Germany and then introduced to Japan and Taiwan. Now it has become an important part of the criminal proof theory in most civil law countries (regions). Proof activity determines the quality of proof, and the more strict proof activity is required, the more reliable the proof result is. For criminal cases, most of the facts to be proved are closely related to the result of the case identification and the rights and interests of the defendant. For these facts, only the strict rules of proof can be used to regulate the proof activities, and the determination of the facts of the case can be more accurate. Only the legal rights and interests of the defendant can be effectively protected. In recent years, a number of major cases of miscarriage of justice have exposed the deficiencies in the investigation of evidence and the determination of the facts of the case in the criminal proceedings in our country. The judicial organs of the Party and the state (or region) attach great importance to this issue. The author also initiated the reform of the litigation system centered on the trial, hoping to carry out the rules of evidence judgment in an all-round way, and to ensure that the trial plays a decisive role in ascertaining the facts, confirming the evidence, protecting the right of action, and fair adjudication. The concept and value of strict proof not only show the trend of modern judicial pursuit of the rule of law, but also meet the needs of the current judicial reform in China. From the point of view of litigation mode and judicial tradition, our country is close to civil law system, and it is feasible to introduce strict rules of proof in our criminal procedure. This paper tries to analyze the contents and similarities and differences of strict proof theory in Germany, Japan and Taiwan, and to explore the essence of strict proof in order to provide reference for our country to study and introduce strict proof. The main part of this paper is divided into four chapters. Chapter one, the basic principle of strict proof. This chapter mainly introduces the definition of the concept of strict proof in Germany, Japan and Taiwan, the relationship between strict proof theory and free proof, the relationship between evidence prohibition and free evidence, and the strict proof in the discovery of entity truth and the protection of human rights. The role of improving the efficiency of litigation. Chapter two, evidence method of strict proof. The proof method of strict proof is to point to the legal evidence method, in the civil law system country (area), generally refer to the defendant, witness, expert, examine and document these five kinds. Since the concept of evidence in our country is limited to "theory of evidence material" and has not been incorporated into the concept of "method of evidence", the classification of evidence types in Criminal procedure Law cannot generalize all forms of evidence material. At the same time, it is not conducive to the drawbacks of effective evidence investigation. Chapter III, strictly proven evidence investigation procedures. This chapter first introduces and analyzes the common principles of evidence investigation procedure strictly proved by Germany, Japan and Taiwan, that is, the principle of word trial, the principle of direct trial and the principle of public hearing. Then put forward that our country should clear the principle of direct words, improve the relevant supporting measures, improve the proportion of sentencing in court, and so on, in order to overcome the current court evidence investigation procedure, cross-examination and authentication of the problem of vanity. Chapter four, the object of strict proof. Reasonable definition of the scope of application of strict proof and free proof is related to the justice of litigation and the realization of litigation efficiency. This chapter first compares and analyzes the specific practices and reasons for defining the scope of application of strict proof and free proof in Germany, Japan and Taiwan, and then combs out the different opinions of domestic scholars on this issue and states their respective advantages and disadvantages. Finally, the author puts forward the principle of dividing the defendant and the burden of proof, and the scope of strict proof of the specific applicable object.
【学位授予单位】：南京师范大学
【学位级别】：硕士
【学位授予年份】：2017
【分类号】：D925.2
【参考文献】
相关期刊论文 前10条
1 魏晓娜;;以审判为中心的刑事诉讼制度改革[J];法学研究;2015年04期
2 张宁;;浅议刑事诉讼严格证明与自由证明之适用范围[J];湖南警察学院学报;2014年03期
3 周成泓;廖荣兴;;论自由证明规则的构建[J];湖南警察学院学报;2013年02期
4 王满生;;刑事证明方法研究——以严格证明与自由证明为分析理路[J];西南民族大学学报(人文社会科学版);2012年12期
5 龙宗智;;进步及其局限——由证据制度调整的观察[J];政法论坛;2012年05期
6 陈瑞华;;案卷移送制度的演变与反思[J];政法论坛;2012年05期
7 陈瑞华;;证据的概念与法定种类[J];法律适用;2012年01期
8 何家弘;;刑事庭审虚化的实证研究[J];法学家;2011年06期
9 闵春雷;;严格证明与自由证明新探[J];中外法学;2010年05期
10 纵博;郝爱军;;刑事诉讼严格证明的若干问题[J];西南政法大学学报;2010年01期
相关硕士学位论文 前1条
1 尹静;刑事诉讼中的严格证明与自由证明[D];西南政法大学;2008年
，本文编号：2335630
本文链接：https://www.wllwen.com/falvlunwen/susongfa/2335630.html
