本文選題：非法證據排除 + 實證研究��； 參考：《中國政法大學》2010年碩士論文

【摘要】： 筆者對非法證據排除規(guī)則以及實證研究的相關概念做簡單的介紹,界定本文概念范圍,在此基礎上我們以非法證據排除規(guī)則為落腳點,通過研究美國關于非法證據排除規(guī)則的實證研究,來總結出一些對我國實證研究方法以及非法證據排除有價值的信息。 筆者對于美國非法證據排除規(guī)則實證研究的相關背景進行了闡述,美國是在非法證據排除方面規(guī)定最為系統(tǒng)的國家,也是執(zhí)行的最為堅決最為徹底的國家,美國建立了各種強制排除的規(guī)則,并在此基礎上規(guī)定了一定的具體例外規(guī)則。但是非法證據規(guī)則在美國褒貶不一,學者們和實踐家們對于非法證據排除規(guī)則呈現出截然相對的兩種論爭觀點,批評者認為非法證據排除規(guī)則使罪犯逃之夭夭,贊成者認為非法證據排除規(guī)則使美國憲法第四修正案具有可操作性,保護人權,維護憲法和法律的尊嚴,雙方均拿出各自的理由進行論證。在這種對非法證據仁者見仁,智者見智的背景下,學者們展開了各自的實證研究來論證自己的觀點,本文筆者詳細列出了兩個有關美國非法證據排除規(guī)則的典型實證研究的具體內容,即美國法院與公眾對第四修正案理解的實證研究和非法證據排除規(guī)則懲戒作用的實證研究,具體介紹了研究的設計、結果的得出、結論的分析以及研究過程的分析等等,這些實證研究對我國研究方法以及實體規(guī)則的構建都有著很重要的啟示。在研究方法上,使我們更加認識到了實證研究方法是推動中國刑事司法領域研究方法的轉型,對實證研究方法有了進一步的深刻的認識,在非法證據排除規(guī)則的實證研究方法方面得出了技術性的指導,比如研究方法的選擇,衡量指標的確定等等。排除規(guī)則具體研究過程中各種方法的利弊權衡,成本收益的分析,今后排除規(guī)則可能涉及的領域,具體包括分析違法行為,研究必須比較警官的非法行為與警官實現公眾安全行為之間的比率,研究必須考慮如何比較不同類型的警官違法行為,以及確定這些違法行為與警官維護公眾安全的合法行為之間的比率,研究盡可能的排除其他造成警官違法行為的原因性解釋的影響等等內容,都為我國開展非法證據排除規(guī)則的實證研究提供了前車之鑒。在實體規(guī)則方面,我國目前并不存在完整意義上的非法證據排除規(guī)則,通過對美國學者有關非法證據排除規(guī)則的實證研究,為今后我國構建非法證據排除規(guī)則提供了實踐基礎,同時我們更加意識到了我國目前法律規(guī)定的單薄,筆者對于今后我國非法證據排除規(guī)則的構建,分別在立法、司法、執(zhí)法方面提出了一些完善的建議。
[Abstract]:The author makes a brief introduction to the exclusion rules of illegal evidence and the related concepts of empirical research, and defines the scope of the concept in this paper. On this basis, we take the rule of exclusion of illegal evidence as the foothold. Through the empirical research on the exclusion rules of illegal evidence in the United States, the paper summarizes some valuable information on the empirical research methods and exclusions of illegal evidence in China. The author expounds the relevant background of the empirical study on the exclusionary rules of illegal evidence in the United States. The United States is the most systematic country in the exclusion of illegal evidence, and the most resolute and thorough country to enforce it. The United States has established various rules of compulsory exclusion, and on this basis has stipulated certain specific exception rules. However, the rules of illegal evidence are mixed in the United States. Scholars and practitioners have two opposite arguments about the rule of exclusion of illegal evidence. Critics believe that the rule of exclusion of illegal evidence causes criminals to escape. The proponents believe that the exclusion rule of illegal evidence makes the fourth Amendment operational, protects human rights, and upholds the dignity of the Constitution and the law. Against the background of different opinions and different opinions on illegal evidence, scholars have conducted their own empirical studies to demonstrate their views. In this paper, the author lists in detail two typical empirical studies on the exclusion rules of illegal evidence in the United States, that is, the empirical study on the understanding of the fourth Amendment between American courts and the public, and the empirical study on the disciplinary effect of the exclusionary rules of illegal evidence. This paper introduces the design of the research, the conclusion of the research, the analysis of the conclusion and the analysis of the research process, etc. These empirical studies have important implications for the research methods and the construction of substantive rules in China. In terms of research methods, it makes us realize that the empirical research method is to promote the transformation of the research methods in the field of criminal justice in China, and we have a deeper understanding of the empirical research methods. In the empirical research of illegal evidence exclusion rules, technical guidance is obtained, such as the choice of research methods, the determination of measurement indicators, and so on. The advantages and disadvantages of various methods in the specific research process of exclusion rules, the analysis of cost and benefit, the areas that the exclusion rules may involve in the future, including the analysis of illegal acts, The study must compare the ratio between the illegal conduct of a police officer and the conduct of a police officer to achieve public safety, and the study must consider how to compare different types of police officers' illegal conduct, And to determine the ratio between these violations and the lawful acts of police officers to maintain public safety, and to study the effects of excluding as much as possible other causal interpretations of police officers' violations, For our country to carry out the rule of illegal evidence exclusion empirical research provides a warning. In the aspect of substantive rules, there are no complete exclusionary rules of illegal evidence in our country at present. Through the empirical study on the exclusion rules of illegal evidence by American scholars, it provides a practical basis for the construction of exclusionary rules of illegal evidence in China in the future. At the same time, we are more aware of the weakness of our current law, the author of the future illegal evidence exclusion rule construction, respectively in legislation, justice, law enforcement put forward some perfect suggestions.
【學位授予單位】：中國政法大學
【學位級別】：碩士
【學位授予年份】：2010
【分類號】：D971.2;D915.13

【引證文獻】

相關碩士學位論文 前1條

1 胡圖;非法證據證明制度研究[D];復旦大學;2012年

，

本文編號：1940740