中国非法证据排除规则构建研究

发布时间：2018-01-02 15:42

本文关键词：中国非法证据排除规则构建研究　出处：《吉林大学》2013年博士论文　论文类型：学位论文

【摘要】：近年来，，有关非法证据排除规则的构建问题越来越引起立法者和学者们的普遍关注。是否确立非法证据排除规则，如何确立，反映一个国家司法民主化、文明化的程度，在一定意义上反映出一个国家对于人权保障的基本态度。但是，并不是说，确立了非法证据排除规则，确立的范围越宽泛，就反映该国的司法民主、文明程度越高，人权保障愈加完善。在对非法证据排除规则的理论基础、历史沿革和各国现状进行详尽分析的基础上，发展和完善非法证据排除规则的操作就十分必要了。本文运用比较研究方法、实证研究方法，结合中国现实国情，提出相应解决方案。本文首先讨论了非法证据排除规则的概念解析、历史回顾。提出非法证据排除规则中的“非法”中的法应仅指违反2012年《中华人民共和国刑事诉讼法》关于证据收集方式的规定和以其为依据的相关司法解释；仅应将非法言辞证据一律自动排除；对非法实物证据（包括书证）既不能脱离实际，也不能因循保守，过于迁就现实，而应适用诉讼均衡论，采取原则视为应排除的“非法证据”的态度；至于“毒树之果”，除以严重侵犯犯罪嫌疑人、被告人和证人人身权利取得的供述和证言为线索搜取的证据外，一般不宜视为应排除的“非法证据”。非法证据排除规则及其理论基础的发展历史告诫我们，排除规则及其理论基础并不是一以贯之，一成不变的，而是随着社会进步的不同阶段、民智开启的不同水平、社会治安的不同状态和理论发展的不同时期而不断发展的。是否建立可能排除真实证据的非法证据排除规则，在多大范围上排除非法证据，这些问题的回答，实际上均与一个判断有关，即社会从排除非法手段索取的证据中所取得的利益或者所获得的价值是否超过了失去发现嫌疑人有罪或无罪的事实真相能力所付出的代价。我国的非法证据排除的理论基础应为保障人权理论、抑制违法理论和正当程序理论。之所以将三种理论并列为非法证据排除的理论基础，除因其内容符合排除规则设立初衷，体现了排除规则主要内容，代表了排除规则发展方向外，更因为三项规则的内容互为补充，只有予以整合，才能适应我国目前法制尚不健全，法律漏洞多多；人们法治意识不高，缺乏权利观念；稳定对社会发展意义关键的实际情况。在第二章本文主要对比世界各国非法证据排除规则的规定。非法证据排除规则的建立，除受政治人权化、民主化的影响外，还受到各自国家刑事政策重点、传统价值取向、法文化传统、诉讼构造、诉讼目的和社会治安水平等因素的制约。甚至考察一国的非法证据排除规则的建立发展历史就可以简明的了解该国的人权发展水平、治安状况等历史背景。也正因为受到诸多制约，一般而言，非法证据排除规则是各国立法者和司法者综合考虑多种因素后做出的符合本国实际的选择。在第三章本文主要介绍了我国现行法律、司法解释中的非法证据排除规则，并探讨了其中存在的问题。一是适用面过窄。主要针对非法言词证据，兼及非法实物证据，对公安、检察机关其他违反宪法关于人权保护和刑事诉讼法关于法定诉讼程序规定收集的证据，应当承担何种法律后果，没有明确规定，实际就是不予排除。二是对一些重要的侦查手段规定，尚付阙如。如狱内侦查等。即便有规定的一些侦查措施，又因过于原则、笼统，内容模糊，也缺乏可操作性。如对技术侦查措施的使用等。三是一些具体内容规定模糊，缺乏操作性。如关于严禁威胁、欺骗取得证言的规定与实践中任何国家都广泛使用的侦查谋略如何划分界限。2010年7月1日，两高三部《非法证据排除规定》和《办理死刑案件证据规定》生效实施。2013年1月1日，刑事诉讼法正式施行，但两个规定和刑诉法的落实情况也不令人乐观。在第四章本文提出了非法证据排除规则的完善措施。完善规则应遵循现实主义原则、兼顾原则和平衡原则。在重复自白是否排除问题上，提出对于侦查人员使用刑讯逼供或暴力取证手段获得言词证据之后，又通过正常程序讯问、询问所获得的言词证据，即重复性言词证据是否排除，关键不在于是否前后言词证据是否内容相同，也不在于前一口供是以实质性违法或技术性违法的方式取得，而在于前后证据是否为不同侦查人员取得。只要更换了审讯、询问小组（人员全部更换），无论之后的言词证据是否与先前通过刑讯逼供、暴力取证得到的相同，其效力均不受影响；提出对通过以与刑讯逼供具有同质性的隐性暴力手段取得的言词证据应以该自动排除；提出对通过威胁、引诱、欺骗等方法获得的言词证据应视情况而定，在法律容许范围内的可以采纳，否则，应予自动排除；提出对于非法取得的实物证据应当自动排除，只是对其中存在技术性瑕疵的部分可赋予法官裁量排除的权力；提出对“纯粹的技术性违法行为”一般应予采纳，特殊情况在当事人提出排除动议时，由检察官、法官裁量排除；提出对“毒树之果”予以采纳，仅在刑讯逼供和暴力取证获得的言词证据为线索取得“毒树之果”的特殊情况下才予以排除；提出犯罪嫌疑人、被告人、证人和被害人均应享有提出非法证据排除的权利。
[Abstract]:In recent years, the construction of the exclusionary rule of illegal evidence increasingly attracted widespread attention of legislators and scholars. Whether the establishment of exclusionary rules, how to establish, reflects a country's judicial democracy, civilized degree, in a sense reflects a country's basic attitude for the protection of human rights. However, is not to say that the establishment of illegal evidence exclusion rules, establish the scope is broad, it reflects the country's judicial democracy, the higher the degree of civilization, human rights protection is more perfect.
Based on the theory of the exclusionary rule of illegal evidence, based on detailed analysis of the history and national situation, the development and perfection of the exclusionary rule of illegal evidence is very necessary. This paper uses comparative research method, empirical research method, combining with the China reality, put forward the corresponding solutions.
This paper first discusses the concept, the exclusionary rule of illegal evidence review. The exclusionary rule of illegal evidence in the "illegal" in law only refers to the violation of the 2012 People's Republic of China Criminal Procedure Law > < on evidence collection regulations and the basis of the relevant judicial interpretation; only the illegal words evidence shall be automatically excluded; on illegal physical evidence (including documentary evidence) is not practical, not too conservative, adapt to the reality and should apply the litigation equilibrium theory, adopts the principle should be excluded as "illegal evidence" attitude; as for the "fruit of the poisonous tree", divided by a serious violation of criminal suspects, defendants and witnesses personal rights made confession and testimony for clues from the evidence, the general should not be regarded as "illegal evidence" should be excluded. The historical development of the exclusionary rule of illegal evidence and its theoretical basis. Tell us, the exclusionary rule and its theoretical basis is not immutable and frozen, but One principle runs through it all., with different stages of social development, different levels of wisdom to open, different state and theoretical development of social security and development.
Whether the illegal evidence established may exclude the true evidence exclusionary rule, the exclusion of illegal evidence in a large range, the answers to these questions are actually related to a judgment is made from the social exclusion of illegal means to obtain evidence of interest or the value obtained is more than the lost found pay suspects guilty or not guilty the truth about the ability of price. The theoretical basis of the exclusion of illegal evidence in our country should be for the protection of human rights theory, law theory and inhibition theory of due process. The reason why the three kinds of theory, theoretical basis for exclusion of illegal evidence, except for its content conforms to the rule set up the original intention, reflect the main content of exclusion rules, on behalf of the exclusion the rules of development direction, but also because the contents of the three rules complement each other, only to be integrated in order to adapt to China's current legal system is not perfect, many legal loopholes Many people are not aware of the rule of law, lack of right ideas, and the key to the significance of social development.
Provisions of the rule in the second chapter of this paper mainly compared the world of illegal evidence. The establishment of the exclusionary rule of illegal evidence, in addition to political rights, the effect of democratization, but also by their respective national criminal policy focus, traditional value orientation, the traditional legal culture, litigation structure, restriction factors and social security level of litigation purposes. Even on a country of illegal evidence exclusionary rule of the establishment and development of the history can be concise understanding of human rights development level of the country, the security situation and historical background. It is because it has many constraints, generally speaking, the exclusionary rule of evidence is made of various factors by national legislation and jurisdiction, after considering the line with their actual the choice.
In the third chapter, this paper mainly introduces the current law of our country, the judicial interpretation of the illegal evidence exclusion rules, and discusses the problems. One is to apply too narrow. Mainly for illegal evidence, and illegal physical evidence, the police, prosecutors and other violations of constitutional law on the protection of human rights and criminal procedure law the legal rules of procedure to collect evidence, shall bear the legal consequences, not clearly defined, is not excluded. Two is the provisions of some important means of investigation is Fu Queru. As the investigation. Even if there are some investigation measures and regulations, and because too principled, general, vague, but also the lack of operation. Such as measures of technical investigation of the use of some of the specific content is three. The provisions of the vague, lack of maneuverability. Such a threat to any country has prohibited, fraud provisions of the testimony and practice are widely How to divide the use of investigative strategies? In.2010 July 1st, the two senior three departments' illegal evidence exclusion rules and the evidence for death penalty cases became effective. In January 1st of July 1st, the criminal procedure law was formally implemented, but the implementation of the two provisions and the criminal procedure law is not optimistic.
In the fourth chapter of this paper puts forward the measures to improve the exclusionary rule of illegal evidence. Perfect rules should follow the principle of realism, taking into account the principle and balance principle. In the repeated confession whether to exclude the problem, put forward to the investigators using torture to extract confessions or means of evidence of violence testimonial evidence, and through the normal procedures of interrogation, ask the verbal evidence obtained the evidence that repetitive words is excluded, the key is not whether the evidence is the same content before and after the words, it is not a confession has been obtained by substantial illegal or technical illegal ways, but that the evidence is different before and after investigators. As long as the replacement of the interrogation, inquiry group (personnel all replaced). No matter whether the evidence after previously through the inquisition by torture, evidence of violence are the same, the effect is not influenced; put on by torture and Having obtained verbal evidence means the homogeneity of recessive violence should be the automatic elimination; put forward to lure by threats, verbal evidence cheating methods should be obtained depending on the situation, in the legal range can be accepted, otherwise, shall be automatically excluded; the physical evidence on the illegal shall be rejected automatically. But the existing technical defects of the part can give judges discretion to exclude authority; put on "technical violations" pure general should be adopted, in special circumstances the parties put forward out of motion, by the prosecutor, the judge discretion to exclude; put forward to adopt the "fruit of the poisonous tree", verbal evidence only in the inquisition by torture and evidence of violence as a clue to obtain "special fruit of the poisonous tree" is proposed to exclude; criminal suspects, defendants, witnesses and victims should be entitled to The right to exclude illegal evidence.

【学位授予单位】：吉林大学
【学位级别】：博士
【学位授予年份】：2013
【分类号】：D925.2

【引证文献】