中國古代證據(jù)制度及其理據(jù)研究
發(fā)布時間：2018-11-27 07:29
【摘要】： 證據(jù)之所以被稱為“訴訟的無冕之王”,是因為它是司法審判的中心環(huán)節(jié),無證據(jù)可能成為疑案、懸案或不能受理的案件,更為重要的是國家、被害人或利益訴求人的利益得不到實現(xiàn)。無論是古代的司法實踐,還是現(xiàn)代的司法實踐,乃至訴訟理論,無論是大陸法系還是英美法系的訴訟制度,其中心都在證據(jù)。人類在解決自身存在的各種矛盾和糾紛過程中,首先必須認定事實,而要認定事實,又必須和運用證據(jù),并遵行一定的證據(jù)規(guī)則,由此形成一套解決各種矛盾、糾紛的制度和方法。筆者認為,在中國古代的司法實踐中,司法官吏鞫獄斷刑、解決糾紛,與現(xiàn)代法官審理案件、解決糾紛本質(zhì)上并無二致,亦即必須有理有據(jù),依證據(jù)斷案,甚至要遵行一定的規(guī)則。本文試圖進入中國古代司法官吏司法實踐的場域,依托中國歷代判例判牘等文獻資料,探求中國古代司法官吏斷案時證據(jù)的取得和采信方式,不同性質(zhì)和類型的案件在適用相同的證據(jù)規(guī)則的同時,又存在怎樣的差別。刑事證據(jù)規(guī)則“口供主義”的理據(jù)在于,代表國家利益的司法官吏,站在國家干涉主義立場上,視犯罪為大惡,追求犯罪者“口服”的司法結(jié)果。民事證據(jù)規(guī)則“券證主義”的理據(jù)在于,司法官吏站在當事人的立場上,奉行券證主義絕對的觀念。對中國古代司法實踐中形成的證據(jù)規(guī)則予以歸納并深入研究,對傳承傳統(tǒng)證據(jù)法文化意義深遠。
[Abstract]:The reason why evidence is called "the uncrowned king of litigation" is that it is the central link of the judicial trial, and that the absence of evidence may become a doubtful case, a pending case or a case that cannot be accepted, and more importantly, the state. The interests of victims or interest claimants are not realized. No matter the ancient judicial practice, the modern judicial practice, and even the litigation theory, whether in the civil law system or the common law system, the heart is in the evidence. In the process of resolving all kinds of contradictions and disputes existing in human beings, we must first identify the facts, and in order to determine the facts, we must use and apply the evidence, and abide by certain rules of evidence, thus forming a set of solutions to all kinds of contradictions. System and method of dispute The author believes that in the ancient Chinese judicial practice, the judicial officials decided the sentence in prison, resolved the dispute, and solved the case in the same way as the modern judge, that is to say, it must be justified and decided according to the evidence. Even follow certain rules. This article attempts to enter the field of judicial practice of ancient Chinese judicial officials, relying on the documents such as the judicial precedent slips of the past dynasties in China, to explore the way of obtaining and adopting the evidence when the judicial officials in ancient China decide cases. At the same time, different types of cases apply the same rules of evidence. The argument of "confession doctrine" in the rules of criminal evidence lies in that the judicial officials who represent the national interests stand on the stand of the state interventionism, regard crime as the great evil, and pursue the judicial result of the offender "taking orally". The civil evidence rule "evidence doctrine" is justified by the fact that the judicial officials stand on the position of the parties and pursue the absolute concept of voucher doctrine. It is of great significance to inherit the culture of traditional evidence law to sum up and study the rules of evidence formed in ancient Chinese judicial practice.
【學位授予單位】：吉林大學
【學位級別】：博士
【學位授予年份】：2009
【分類號】：D929;D925
本文編號：2359870
[Abstract]:The reason why evidence is called "the uncrowned king of litigation" is that it is the central link of the judicial trial, and that the absence of evidence may become a doubtful case, a pending case or a case that cannot be accepted, and more importantly, the state. The interests of victims or interest claimants are not realized. No matter the ancient judicial practice, the modern judicial practice, and even the litigation theory, whether in the civil law system or the common law system, the heart is in the evidence. In the process of resolving all kinds of contradictions and disputes existing in human beings, we must first identify the facts, and in order to determine the facts, we must use and apply the evidence, and abide by certain rules of evidence, thus forming a set of solutions to all kinds of contradictions. System and method of dispute The author believes that in the ancient Chinese judicial practice, the judicial officials decided the sentence in prison, resolved the dispute, and solved the case in the same way as the modern judge, that is to say, it must be justified and decided according to the evidence. Even follow certain rules. This article attempts to enter the field of judicial practice of ancient Chinese judicial officials, relying on the documents such as the judicial precedent slips of the past dynasties in China, to explore the way of obtaining and adopting the evidence when the judicial officials in ancient China decide cases. At the same time, different types of cases apply the same rules of evidence. The argument of "confession doctrine" in the rules of criminal evidence lies in that the judicial officials who represent the national interests stand on the stand of the state interventionism, regard crime as the great evil, and pursue the judicial result of the offender "taking orally". The civil evidence rule "evidence doctrine" is justified by the fact that the judicial officials stand on the position of the parties and pursue the absolute concept of voucher doctrine. It is of great significance to inherit the culture of traditional evidence law to sum up and study the rules of evidence formed in ancient Chinese judicial practice.
【學位授予單位】：吉林大學
【學位級別】：博士
【學位授予年份】：2009
【分類號】：D929;D925
【引證文獻】
相關(guān)博士學位論文 前2條
1 鄭牧民;中國傳統(tǒng)證據(jù)文化研究[D];湘潭大學;2010年
2 尚華;論質(zhì)證[D];中國政法大學;2011年
相關(guān)碩士學位論文 前3條
1 張昀珠;官、民與法：明代社會司法實踐研究[D];廣西師范大學;2012年
2 姜洋;漢代訴訟證據(jù)制度研究[D];魯東大學;2012年
3 梁艷;試論宋代書證制度及書證在司法中的運用[D];蘇州大學;2012年
，本文編號：2359870
本文鏈接：http://sikaile.net/falvlunwen/fashilw/2359870.html
