浅析新刑事诉讼法背景下的侦查人员出庭作证制度

发布时间：2019-07-05 07:42

【摘要】：无论是在英美法系还是在大陆法系,侦查人员出庭制度都是普遍存在的,而在我国的司法实践中侦查人员出庭作证确实十分罕见的,这与世界主流是不相符的,虽然要考虑我们国家的国情,但是人类所共同的价值追求是一致的,公平和正义在任何国家都是需要的,完善这侦查人员出庭作证制度对于我国法治建设有着重要的意义。目前，侦查人员出庭作证制度在我国的建立还处于起始阶段。无论在理论方面还是在实践中，侦查人员出庭作证制度的构建都存在一定的障碍。在过往的理论分析中，学者们往往将侦查人员不同的身份集合在一个点上，进行整体性的分析。这种分析方法只是就理论分析理论，没有将理论与实践结合分析。这就造成了诸多理论障碍、增加了理论的理解难度，甚至是理论分析对实践没有任何的指导作用。笔者认为作为理论研究者应该着眼于现实，以我国侦查人员出庭作证的实际情况为研究对象，构建侦查人员出庭作证制度。新《刑事诉讼法》的颁布与实施为此提供了清晰的逻辑脉络。根据《非法证据排除规定》、《办理死刑案件证据规定》、新《刑事诉讼法》的有关规定，侦查人员出庭作证可以划分为三种模式：以“定罪事实”证人的身份；以“量刑事实”证人的身份；以“证据合法性”证人的身份。侦查人员以“定罪事实”证人的身份出庭作证，适用普通证人出庭作证规则，审判机关有权依法对此类侦查人员实施强制出庭措施，同时侦查人员也有权要求司法机关保障其人身安全和其他权利的实现；侦查人员以“量刑事实”证人的身份出庭作证，具有明显的职业性、专业性和不可代替性。在量刑程序越来越重要受重视的当下，侦查人员为量刑情节出庭作证制度的建立非常重要；侦查人员以“证据合法性”证人的身份出庭作证，是三种模式中理论争议最大、实践难度最高的一种，但是这种出庭作证的模式，关系到非法证据排除和被告人基本的人权保障，所以必须要予以重视。虽然侦查人员出庭作证制度的实施，，目前还存在理论和实践两方面的诸多障碍，但只要研究者以实践为根本，对侦查人员三种不同的作证模式分别研究，辅以证人出庭作证制度的完善、司法独立的实现，建立起一套成熟的侦查人员出庭作证制度指日可待。
[Abstract]:Whether in the common law system or in the civil law system, the system of investigators appearing in court is universal, and it is indeed very rare for investigators to testify in court in the judicial practice of our country, which is inconsistent with the mainstream of the world. Although the national conditions of our country should be taken into account, the common value pursuit of mankind is consistent, and fairness and justice are needed in any country. It is of great significance to perfect the system of testifying in court for the construction of the rule of law in our country. At present, the establishment of the system of investigators testifying in court in our country is still in the initial stage. Whether in theory or in practice, there are some obstacles to the construction of investigators testifying in court. In the past theoretical analysis, scholars often set the different identities of investigators at one point to carry out a holistic analysis. This analysis method is only on the theory of theoretical analysis, not on the combination of theory and practice. This has caused many theoretical obstacles, increased the difficulty of understanding the theory, and even the theoretical analysis has no guiding effect on practice. The author believes that as a theoretical researcher, we should focus on the reality, take the actual situation of investigators testifying in court as the research object, and construct the system of investigators testifying in court. The promulgation and implementation of the new Criminal procedure Law provides a clear logical context for this purpose. According to the provisions on the exclusion of illegal evidence, the provisions on the handling of evidence in death penalty cases and the relevant provisions of the new Criminal procedure Law, investigators can be divided into three modes to testify in court: as witnesses of "conviction facts", as witnesses of "sentencing facts" and as witnesses of "legality of evidence". Investigators testify in court as "convicted fact" witnesses, and apply the rules of ordinary witnesses to testify in court. Judicial organs have the power to impose compulsory court appearance measures on such investigators in accordance with the law, and investigators also have the right to request judicial organs to ensure the realization of their personal safety and other rights. Investigators testify in court as witnesses of "sentencing facts", which is obviously professional, professional and irreplaceable. At a time when sentencing procedures are paid more and more important attention, it is very important for investigators to testify in court for sentencing circumstances. Investigators testify in court as "evidence legitimacy" witnesses, which is the most controversial in theory and the most difficult in practice, but this mode of testifying in court is related to the exclusion of illegal evidence and the basic human rights protection of the defendant, so we must pay attention to it. Although there are still many obstacles in theory and practice in the implementation of the system for investigators to testify in court, as long as the researchers take practice as the foundation, they study the three different testimony modes of investigators separately, supplemented by the perfection of the system of witness appearing in court and the realization of judicial independence, and the establishment of a set of mature system for investigators to testify in court is just around the corner.
【学位授予单位】：江西师范大学
【学位级别】：硕士
【学位授予年份】：2014
【分类号】：D925.2

【参考文献】