论量刑程序中的证据规则

发布时间：2018-06-11 21:47

本文选题：量刑程序 + 刑罚个别化　；参考：《吉林大学》2014年硕士论文

【摘要】：我国现行的由最高人民法院所推行的相对独立的量刑程序，是一个在定罪程序结束的基础之上，在相对独立的时间和空间范围内，围绕如何确定被告人具体刑罚而进行的专门的审判程序。量刑程序之所以能够从定罪程序中分离出来，是因为其有着区别于定罪程序的价值基础和审判方式，而这种独特的审判方式又是通过具体的证据规则体现出来的。我国2012年《刑事诉讼法》的修改首次以立法的形式明确了量刑事实、证据的地位，但由于缺乏进一步的规定和完善，，未能制定出一套适用于量刑程序的独立的证据规则，导致量刑程序与定罪程序的区分不够明确，使得相对独立的量刑程序缺乏制度上的保障。因此，对量刑程序中证据规则的探讨可以说是研究量刑程序的着眼点与核心。关于量刑程序证据规则提出的理论背景，可以从“三个转化”的角度来理解：一是由“刑罚报应论”向“刑罚目的论”的转化；二是由“准确定罪”向“刑罚个别化”的转化；三是由“无罪推定原则主导”向“无罪推定原则暂时失效”的转化。这三个转化为量刑证据规则的设置奠定了基础，体现了量刑程序的核心价值导向，进而揭示出了量刑证据规则所必须遵循的目标和原则。同时，三个转化作为笔者构建量刑证据规则的基石，贯穿于研讨量刑证据规则问题的始末，起着重要的指导作用。量刑证据是指仅能在量刑程序中使用的，只能用以确定犯罪嫌疑人、被告人判处具体刑罚的各种事实材料。此外，量刑证据与定罪证据的区别也是厘清量刑证据概念的关键所在。具体而言，体现在以下三个方面：首先是二者的目的不同，定罪证据的目的旨在对被告人进行准确的定罪，而量刑证据则旨在实现刑罚的个别化；其次是二者是否受无罪推定原则的约束不同，定罪证据受到无罪推定原则的约束，而量刑证据则可以暂时不受该原则的约束；最后是二者的依据不同，定罪证据依据的是与犯罪构成要件相关的定罪信息，量刑证据则是依据从重、从轻、减轻或者是免除刑事处罚的量刑信息。由于无罪推定原则的暂时失效和控辩双方平等诉讼地位的形成，量刑程序不再涉及对被告一方的特殊保护。同时，为了能够充分体现出被告人人身危险性和其犯罪行为的社会危害性，量刑证据的关联性属性应予以适当放宽。因此，笔者认为在量刑程序中应当扩大证据的范围，降低相应的证据准入规则以保障量刑证据的全面收集。概括起来主要体现在以下三个方面：一是传闻证据的准入；二是品格证据的准入；三是非法证据的有条件准入。社会调查报告作为一种能够影响刑罚轻重的材料，其法律定位问题亟待明确。只有厘清社会调查报告的法律属性，才能够确定其法律效果以及对诉讼各方的约束力，使得该制度的运行具有现实性和可操作性。笔者认为，为了充分发挥社会调查报告在量刑程序中的作用，应当赋予其证据的属性，并作为量刑证据的一种纳入到量刑证据的范畴之中。原因有三：其一是2012年的《刑事诉讼法》对证据概念的规定应该做出扩张解释；其二是传统的证据学理论的证据三性，并不能当然的适用于量刑证据之中；其三是从社会调查报告的功能与作用上看，应将其作为证据使用以起到重要的补充作用。量刑证明是量刑证据规则的重要内容之一，本文从证明对象、证明责任、证明标准和证明方法这四个方面对量刑程序的证明规则进行探讨。笔者将证明对象限定为量刑事实：即用以说明被告人犯罪行为的严重程度，并以此决定对被告人是否判处刑罚以及判处何种刑罚的各种事实情况。对于证明责任，基于被告人权利已经在定罪程序中得到了以最大限度的保障，控辩双方的对抗性特征已经受到了削弱。因此，笔者主张在量刑程序中采用“谁主张，谁举证”的原则，即被告人同公诉机关分别就自己的主张承担举证责任。笔者主张在量刑程序中设立独立于定罪程序的证明标准，并根据不同的量刑证明对象，适用不同的证明标准。具体而言，对于法定的量刑事实采用清楚可信的证明标准，对酌定事实采用优势证据标准。最后在量刑程序证明方法上，笔者主张适用自由证明的证明方法，以推动庭审的高效进行。
[Abstract]:The relative independent sentencing procedure carried out by the Supreme People's court in our country is a special trial procedure on how to determine the specific penalty of the accused on the basis of the end of the conviction procedure in a relatively independent time and space. The reason why the sentence of sentencing can be separated from the convictions procedure is that of the procedure of sentencing. Because it has the value basis and the way of judgment which is different from the convictions procedure, the unique way of trial is reflected by the specific rules of evidence. In 2012, the amendment of the criminal procedure law of China was first defined in the form of legislation for the fact of sentencing, the status of evidence, but the lack of further regulations and perfection. A set of independent evidence rules applicable to the sentencing procedure has been set up, which leads to the lack of clear distinction between the sentencing procedure and the convictions procedure, which makes the relative independent sentencing procedure lack of institutional guarantee. Therefore, the discussion of the rules of evidence in the sentencing procedure can be said to be the focus and the core of the study of the sentencing procedure.
The theoretical background of the rule of evidence for sentencing procedure can be understood from the angle of "three transformations": one is the transformation from "penalty retribution theory" to "penalty objective theory"; two is the transformation from "accurate conviction" to "penalty individualization"; and three is "presumption of innocence principle" to "the principle of presumption of innocence temporarily". These three transformations have laid the foundation for the setting of the rules of sentencing evidence, which embodies the core value orientation of the sentencing procedure, and then reveals the goals and principles that the rules of sentencing evidence must follow. At the same time, the three transformation is the cornerstone of the author's rule of sentencing evidence, which runs through the discussion of the rules of sentencing evidence. The beginning and the end played an important guiding role.
The sentencing evidence refers to the fact that the criminal suspects can only be used to determine the criminal suspects and the defendants are sentenced to specific penalties. In addition, the difference between the sentencing evidence and the convicted evidence is also the key to the clarification of the concept of the sentencing evidence. In particular, the following three aspects are reflected in the following aspects: first, the purposes of the two are different, The purpose of the conviction evidence is to make an accurate conviction for the defendant, and the sentencing evidence is aimed at realizing the individualization of the penalty; the second is whether the two are restricted by the principle of presumption of innocence, the evidence of the conviction is bound by the principle of presumption of innocence, and the sentencing evidence can not be restricted by the principle for the time being; finally, the basis of the two party is the basis. In different cases, the evidence of convictions is based on the conviction information related to the constitutive elements of the crime, and the sentencing evidence is based on heavy, light, mitigated or exempted from criminal punishment.
Because of the temporary failure of the principle of presumption of innocence and the formation of the equal litigation status of the two parties, the procedure of sentencing is no longer involved in the special protection of the defendant. At the same time, in order to fully reflect the danger of the defendant and the social harmfulness of his criminal behavior, the relevance attribute of the sentencing evidence should be appropriately relaxed. Therefore, the author It is believed that the scope of evidence should be expanded in the sentencing procedure, and the relevant rules of admittance should be reduced to ensure the comprehensive collection of sentencing evidence. It is summarized mainly in the following three aspects: first, the admittance of hearsay evidence; the two is the admittance of character evidence; and three is the conditional access of illegal evidence.
As a material that can affect the severity of the penalty, the social investigation report needs to be clearly defined. Only by clarifying the legal attributes of the social investigation report can it determine its legal effect and the binding force to the parties, making the operation of the system realistic and operable. The role of the investigation report in the sentencing procedure should be given the attribute of the evidence and as a kind of sentencing evidence into the category of sentencing evidence. There are three reasons: first, the criminal procedure law in 2012 should be expanded to explain the definition of the concept of evidence; and the other is the evidence of the traditional evidence theory. Of course, it can be applied to the evidence of sentencing; thirdly, it should be used as evidence to play an important supplementary role in the function and function of the social investigation report.
The proof of sentencing is one of the important contents of the rule of sentencing evidence. This article discusses the proof rules of the sentencing procedure from four aspects: the object of proof, the burden of proof, the standard of proof and the method of proof. The author will prove that the object is limited to the fact of sentencing: that is to explain the seriousness of the defendant's crime and to decide on the defendant Whether or not the facts of the punishment and what kind of punishment are imposed. For the burden of proof, the rights of the accused have been guaranteed to the maximum of the conviction procedure, and the antagonistic characteristics of the two parties have been weakened. Therefore, the author advocates the principle of "who advocates, who raises the proof" in the sentencing procedure, that is, the principle of being used in the sentencing procedure. The author holds the burden of proof with the public prosecutor on its own claims. The author advocates the establishment of a standard of proof independent of the conviction procedure in the sentencing procedure, and the application of different standard of proof according to the object of different sentencing proof. Finally, in the way of proving the sentencing procedure, the author advocates applying the method of proof of free proof to promote the efficient implementation of the trial.
【学位授予单位】：吉林大学
【学位级别】：硕士
【学位授予年份】：2014
【分类号】：D924.1

【参考文献】