本文選題：非法證據(jù) + 排除��； 參考：《西南政法大學》2012年碩士論文

【摘要】：本文是針對實務部門關于兩個證據(jù)《規(guī)定》1尤其是《非法證據(jù)排除規(guī)定》的適用情況而寫的。2010年兩院三部聯(lián)合制定并于同年7月1日實施兩個證據(jù)《規(guī)定》，該《規(guī)定》的頒布和實施一定程度上彌補了我國相關法律中沒有非法證據(jù)排除規(guī)則的空白，對規(guī)范偵查機關取證、保障犯罪嫌疑人、被告人的合法權益、防止刑訊逼供等行為起到了重要作用。但是瑕不掩瑜，兩個證據(jù)《規(guī)定》在司法實踐中也暴露出一些不成熟之處。 筆者借在F市檢察院實習之機，對兩個證據(jù)《規(guī)定》在實務部門的實施進行了深入的實證考察。文章通過了解實務部門對兩個證據(jù)《規(guī)定》的運作過程，發(fā)現(xiàn)其在司法實踐中存在的不足，并分析其產(chǎn)生的原因，最后重點從實體方面和程序方面提出相應的完善措施。 本文共分四部分，第一部分為導論，首先簡要介紹兩個證據(jù)《規(guī)定》的出臺背景和意義；其次對該《規(guī)定》施行前及實施后我國實務部門的操作狀況及相關基本理論進行了簡單的論述；最后闡述了作者的寫作思路及不足之處。 第二部分是兩個證據(jù)《規(guī)定》在實務部門的實證研究。論述偵查機關、檢察機關以及審判機關對該《規(guī)定》的實施，主要是通過三個案例和八個表格展現(xiàn)司法實踐中的具體運作狀況。 第三部分為該《規(guī)定》在司法實踐中存在的不足，重點從實體方面和程序方面著手。實體方面主要表現(xiàn)：在排除范圍上，較之前法律規(guī)定實質(zhì)上是縮小了排除的范圍；排除的主體過多；《規(guī)定》的一些細節(jié)沒有細化，致使可操作性不強；證人證言的合法性無人核實及偵查人員不出庭；偵查機關與羈押場所的管理體制不合理；程序方面的缺陷主要表現(xiàn)在程序啟動方式、裁判方式及證明標準。 第四部分為完善兩個證據(jù)《規(guī)定》的對策。主要是筆者針對第三部分反映出的不足從實體方面和程序方面提出相應的完善措施，以期望使兩個證據(jù)《規(guī)定》在實務中更具操作性。 筆者帶著理論界關于《非法證據(jù)排除規(guī)定》的爭議深入司法實踐，以真實的工作實際為切入點，考察爭議問題并對其進行分析，本文采用的數(shù)據(jù)、觀察到的現(xiàn)象是完全來自實踐部門的第一手材料，對問題的思考和分析及結論亦基于此，親歷性強，更具說服力。筆者結合兩個證據(jù)《規(guī)定》尤其是《非法證據(jù)排除規(guī)定》在司法實踐中的所反映出問題，并在學界既有的研究基礎上提出了一些讓兩個證據(jù)《規(guī)定》更具操作性的建議。但是本文也有不足之處，，筆者由于習法時間較短，理論功底不深，只有在學界既有的研究基礎上去考察兩個兩個證據(jù)《規(guī)定》的適用效果，理論創(chuàng)新不是很突出，并且考察范圍僅限于F市，所以并不能完全反映全國的適用效果。
[Abstract]:This article is written in response to the application of the two evidence < regulations > 1, especially the illegal evidence exclusion provisions, by the substantive departments. In 2010, the three chambers jointly formulated and implemented the two evidence < regulations] on 1 July of the same year. To a certain extent, the promulgation and implementation of the regulations have filled the gap in the rule of exclusion of illegal evidence in the relevant laws of our country. It plays an important role in standardizing the evidence collection of investigation organs, protecting the legitimate rights and interests of criminal suspects and defendants, and preventing the extortion of confessions by torture. However, the two evidences also reveal some immaturity in judicial practice. Taking the opportunity of practice in F City Procuratorate, the author makes a deep empirical investigation on the implementation of two evidences in practical departments. Through understanding the operation process of the two evidences in the practical department, this paper finds out their shortcomings in the judicial practice, analyzes the reasons for their emergence, and finally puts forward the corresponding consummation measures from the substantive and procedural aspects. This article is divided into four parts, the first part is the introduction, first briefly introduces the background and significance of the introduction of the two evidences. Secondly, the paper briefly discusses the operation status and related basic theories of the practical departments before and after the implementation of the regulations, and finally expounds the author's writing ideas and shortcomings. The second part is the empirical study of two evidences in the practice department. This paper discusses the implementation of this stipulation by investigating organs, procuratorial organs and judicial organs, mainly through three cases and eight tables to show the concrete operation status in judicial practice. The third part is the deficiency in the judicial practice, focusing on the substantive and procedural aspects. The main performance of the entity: in the scope of exclusion, compared with the previous legal provisions is essentially to narrow the scope of exclusion, the exclusion of too many subjects, the provisions of some of the details have not been refined, resulting in a lack of maneuverability; The legitimacy of witness testimony is not verified and investigators do not appear in court; the management system of investigation organs and places of detention is unreasonable; the defects of procedure are mainly manifested in the way of procedure initiation, the way of adjudication and the standard of proof. The fourth part is the countermeasure of perfecting the two evidences. The author mainly aims at the deficiency reflected in the third part and puts forward the corresponding perfect measures from the aspect of substance and procedure in order to make the two evidences more operable in practice. The author takes the dispute of "exclusion of illegal evidence" into judicial practice, taking the real work reality as the breakthrough point, investigates the dispute and analyzes it, the data used in this paper, The observed phenomenon comes from the firsthand materials of the practice department, and the thinking, analysis and conclusion of the problem are based on this, which has strong experience and is more persuasive. The author combines the two evidences, especially the exclusion of illegal evidence, which reflects the problems in the judicial practice, and puts forward some suggestions to make the two evidences more operable on the basis of the existing research in the academic circles. But this article also has the deficiency, the author because the study method time is short, the theory foundation is not deep, only in the academic circles existing research foundation to examine two evidence "stipulation" the application effect, the theory innovation is not very prominent, And the scope of investigation is limited to F city, so it can not completely reflect the applicable effect of the whole country.
【學位授予單位】：西南政法大學
【學位級別】：碩士
【學位授予年份】：2012
【分類號】：D925.13;D926

【參考文獻】

相關期刊論文 前10條

1 楊宇冠;;非法證據(jù)排除規(guī)則及其在中國確立問題研究[J];比較法研究;2010年03期

2 李訓虎;;美國證據(jù)法中的證明力規(guī)則[J];比較法研究;2010年04期

3 邱愛民;;科學證據(jù)內(nèi)涵和外延的比較法分析[J];比較法研究;2010年05期

4 陳衛(wèi)東;劉昂;;我國建立非法證據(jù)排除規(guī)則的障礙透視與建議[J];法律適用;2006年06期

5 彭海青;;我國刑事司法改革的推進之路——由兩個《證據(jù)規(guī)定》的出臺所引發(fā)的思考[J];法學評論;2011年03期

6 左衛(wèi)民,周洪波;從合法到非法:刑訊逼供的語境分析[J];法學;2002年10期

7 趙志梅;;對《非法證據(jù)排除規(guī)定》的解讀與反思——以遏制刑訊逼供之功能為視角[J];山西高等學校社會科學學報;2011年01期

8 汪建成;;中國需要什么樣的非法證據(jù)排除規(guī)則[J];環(huán)球法律評論;2006年05期

9 栗崢;;當代英美證據(jù)法學思潮[J];環(huán)球法律評論;2010年03期

10 林喜芬;;論“兩個證據(jù)規(guī)定”的三大突破與五個局限——以非法言詞證據(jù)的證據(jù)能力為重心[J];現(xiàn)代法學;2011年02期

本文編號：2100378