刑事瑕疵证据的补正制度研究

发布时间：2018-12-11 01:01

【摘要】：由于瑕疵证据在违法性方面表现出来的特殊性，使得其一直游离于合法证据与非法证据之间。在司法实践的实际应用中，由于立法未能作出明确规定，导致瑕疵证据一直处于一种尴尬境地。随着2010年有关司法解释的颁布实施和2012年《刑事诉讼法》的修改，瑕疵证据的补正制度得以逐步确立起来。这是因为考虑到诉讼投入与最终获得收益之间的“性价比”，才最终给予瑕疵证据进行补正的机会。如此一来，不仅可以弥补非法证据排除规则的缺陷，还有利于发现案件真实，对于规范刑事司法实践中的取证行为也具有重要意义。瑕疵证据经过补正达到治愈标准之后，影响其证据能力的缺陷得以弥补，因而瑕疵证据也随之得以获得证据能力，就不再是原来的证据能力待定的证据。但是瑕疵证据的违法性身份并没有因此改变，，此时的瑕疵证据仍然是不合法证据，通过补正改变的只是瑕疵证据的证据能力，而并没有改变瑕疵证据原来所具有的违法性特征。这样在发挥其作用的同时，又保持对不规范取证行为的否定。不过在对瑕疵证据的补正限度作出合理限定之前，难免会让人产生架空非法证据排除规则的担忧，因而在对补正的操作主体作出规定之后，有必要再辅以相应的登记备案，以便使补正的期限和次数能够在制度的有效规范之中。构建一个相对完善的瑕疵证据补正制度，还需要对瑕疵证据的补正程序、补正方法、治愈标准和补正限度等作出详细的制度设计。
[Abstract]:Because of the particularity of defective evidence in illegality, it is always between legal evidence and illegal evidence. In the practical application of judicial practice, the defective evidence has always been in an awkward situation because the legislation failed to make clear provisions. With the promulgation and implementation of the judicial interpretation in 2010 and the revision of the Criminal procedure Law in 2012, the system of correcting defective evidence has been gradually established. This is because considering the cost-to-performance ratio between litigation input and final return, the opportunity to correct defective evidence is finally given. In this way, it can not only remedy the defects of the rule of exclusion of illegal evidence, but also help to find the truth of the case, and it is also of great significance to standardize the practice of criminal justice. After the defective evidence has been corrected to reach the standard of cure, the defects affecting its ability of evidence can be made up, so that the defective evidence can also be obtained with the ability of evidence, so it is no longer the original evidence capacity to be determined. However, the illegal identity of defective evidence has not changed, at this time, defective evidence is still illegal evidence, through the correction of only the defective evidence of the ability of evidence, and did not change the defective evidence with the original illegal characteristics. In this way, while playing its role, while maintaining the non-standard evidence-taking behavior of the negative. However, before the limits of the correction of defective evidence are reasonably limited, it will inevitably cause people to worry about the exclusion rules of overhead illegal evidence. Therefore, after the provisions have been made on the subject of the correction, it is necessary to supplement the corresponding registration and record. In order to make the time limit and times of correction in the effective norms of the system. In order to construct a relatively perfect system of correction of defective evidence, it is necessary to design in detail the procedures, methods, standards and limits of correction of defective evidence.
【学位授予单位】：烟台大学
【学位级别】：硕士
【学位授予年份】：2014
【分类号】：D925.2

【参考文献】