本文關(guān)鍵詞：論刑事訴訟證據(jù)裁判原則　出處：《鄭州大學(xué)》2016年碩士論文　論文類(lèi)型：學(xué)位論文

  更多相關(guān)文章： 刑事訴訟 證據(jù)裁判原則 非法證據(jù)排除 證據(jù)規(guī)則

【摘要】：證據(jù)裁判原則是刑事訴訟法中的一項(xiàng)基本原則,是指在刑事訴訟活動(dòng)中認(rèn)定案件事實(shí)必須以證據(jù)為本,也就是說(shuō),刑事司法裁判必須建立在證據(jù)的基礎(chǔ)之上。人類(lèi)社會(huì)的司法證明方法曾經(jīng)經(jīng)歷過(guò)兩次重大轉(zhuǎn)變:第一次是從“神證”轉(zhuǎn)變?yōu)椤叭俗C”,第二次是從“人證”轉(zhuǎn)變?yōu)椤拔镒C”。隨著人類(lèi)社會(huì)的不斷進(jìn)步,司法證明方法更加科學(xué),更加符合客觀規(guī)律,證據(jù)裁判原則就是這一過(guò)程中的最終產(chǎn)物。刑事訴訟證據(jù)裁判原則應(yīng)當(dāng)包括如下含義:(1)認(rèn)定待證事實(shí)應(yīng)當(dāng)依靠證據(jù),沒(méi)有證據(jù)不能認(rèn)定案件事實(shí);(2)用于證明待證事實(shí)的證據(jù)應(yīng)當(dāng)具有證據(jù)能力,不具有證據(jù)能力的證據(jù)不得采用;(3)用于證明待證事實(shí)的證據(jù)必須經(jīng)法庭查證屬實(shí)。證據(jù)裁判原則要求以證據(jù)為根據(jù)合理判斷案件事實(shí),司法工作人員不能以主觀的臆斷或猜測(cè)等作為認(rèn)定案件事實(shí)的依據(jù)。在司法實(shí)踐中這一原則具有十分重要的意義,它可以有效克服司法專(zhuān)橫,防止刑訊逼供,實(shí)現(xiàn)司法公正。在這種要求下,司法工作人員在辦案工作中就應(yīng)當(dāng)完全依據(jù)現(xiàn)有證據(jù)認(rèn)定案件事實(shí),嚴(yán)格按照法律對(duì)案件進(jìn)行裁判。基于此,世界上許多國(guó)家對(duì)證據(jù)裁判原則作出了明確規(guī)定,我國(guó)刑事訴訟法也基本確立了這一原則。我國(guó)立法有關(guān)證據(jù)裁判原則的規(guī)定分散于《刑事訴訟法》和相關(guān)司法解釋中,相關(guān)規(guī)定只是體現(xiàn)了證據(jù)裁判原則的基本精神,立法并未明確確立這一原則,且存在證明標(biāo)準(zhǔn)不明確、證據(jù)規(guī)則體系不完善、證據(jù)裁判違法責(zé)任缺失等不足。同時(shí),由于我國(guó)司法長(zhǎng)期“重實(shí)體、輕程序”,司法實(shí)踐中仍有許多違背證據(jù)裁判原則的做法,存在諸多不足,如司法工作人員證據(jù)裁判理念不強(qiáng)、非法取證行為屢禁不止、裁判文書(shū)說(shuō)理制度不完善等。證據(jù)裁判原則是刑事訴訟制度的核心原則,它使認(rèn)定案件事實(shí)的過(guò)程更具有科學(xué)性、客觀性和說(shuō)服力。由于這一原則在我國(guó)刑事訴訟立法和司法實(shí)踐中仍存在諸多不足,因此,有必要進(jìn)一步深入研究刑事訴訟證據(jù)裁判原則。本文從介紹證據(jù)裁判原則的基本內(nèi)容出發(fā),對(duì)域外主要國(guó)家的證據(jù)裁判原則進(jìn)行考察,同時(shí)分析我國(guó)適用證據(jù)裁判原則的現(xiàn)狀及存在的問(wèn)題,提出相關(guān)完善建議。經(jīng)過(guò)分析論證,使證據(jù)裁判原則在我國(guó)得以更好的適用,樹(shù)立文明、科學(xué)的現(xiàn)代司法理念,保障司法活動(dòng)的公平和公正。
[Abstract]:The principle of evidence adjudication is a basic principle in the criminal procedure law, which means that the fact of the case must be based on the evidence in the criminal proceedings, that is to say. Criminal justice must be based on evidence. The method of judicial proof in human society has undergone two major changes: the first time is from "divine evidence" to "human witness". The second time is from "witness" to "material evidence". With the continuous progress of human society, the method of judicial proof is more scientific, more in line with the objective law. The principle of evidence adjudication is the final product of this process. The principle of evidence adjudication in criminal proceedings should include the following meaning: 1) the fact to be proved should depend on the evidence, and the fact of the case cannot be ascertained without evidence; (2) the evidence used to prove the facts to be proved shall have the evidentiary capacity, and the evidence which does not possess the evidentiary capacity shall not be used; The evidence used to prove the facts to be proved must be verified by the court. The principle of evidence adjudication requires that the facts of the case should be reasonably judged on the basis of evidence. Judicial staff can not use subjective assumptions or guesses as the basis for determining the facts of the case. In judicial practice, this principle has a very important significance, it can effectively overcome judicial arbitrariness and prevent torture of confessions. Under this kind of request, the judicial staff should determine the facts of the case according to the existing evidence and judge the case strictly in accordance with the law. Many countries in the world have clearly stipulated the principle of evidence adjudication. China's criminal procedure law has basically established this principle. The provisions of our legislation on the principle of evidence adjudication are scattered in the Criminal procedure Law and related judicial interpretation. Relevant provisions only reflect the basic spirit of the principle of evidence adjudication, legislation has not clearly established this principle, and there is not clear standards of proof, evidence rules system is not perfect. At the same time, due to our country's judicature for a long time "emphasis on substance, not the procedure", there are still many practices of violating the principle of evidence adjudication in judicial practice, there are many shortcomings. The principle of evidence adjudication is the core principle of criminal procedure system, for example, the concept of evidence judgment of judicial staff is not strong, the illegal evidence collection behavior is not prohibited, the reasoning system of judgment documents is not perfect and the principle of evidence adjudication is the core principle of the criminal procedure system. It makes the process of determining the facts of the case more scientific, objective and persuasive. Because this principle still has many shortcomings in our criminal procedure legislation and judicial practice, therefore. It is necessary to further study the principle of evidence adjudication in criminal proceedings. This paper starts from the introduction of the basic content of the principle of evidence adjudication, and investigates the principle of evidence adjudication in major foreign countries. At the same time, this paper analyzes the current situation and existing problems of applying the principle of evidence adjudication in our country, and puts forward some relevant perfect suggestions. Through the analysis and demonstration, the principle of evidence adjudication can be better applied in our country and establish civilization. The scientific modern judicial concept ensures the fairness and fairness of judicial activities.
【學(xué)位授予單位】：鄭州大學(xué)
【學(xué)位級(jí)別】：碩士
【學(xué)位授予年份】：2016
【分類(lèi)號(hào)】：D925.2

【相似文獻(xiàn)】

相關(guān)期刊論文 前10條

1 范德浩,干朝端;關(guān)于刑事訴訟證據(jù)立法的幾個(gè)問(wèn)題[J];法律適用;2000年09期

2 徐剛,汪永杰;刑事訴訟證據(jù)“事實(shí)論”辨析[J];安徽工業(yè)大學(xué)學(xué)報(bào)(社會(huì)科學(xué)版);2001年03期

3 程新生;試析刑事訴訟證據(jù)的法律性[J];安徽工業(yè)大學(xué)學(xué)報(bào)(社會(huì)科學(xué)版);2002年02期

4 陶衛(wèi)東;傅圣敏;李文超;;論我國(guó)刑事訴訟證據(jù)制度的欠缺與完善[J];山東理工大學(xué)學(xué)報(bào)(社會(huì)科學(xué)版);2009年03期

5 劉冬盼;;從行政證據(jù)到刑事訴訟證據(jù)轉(zhuǎn)換的法律分析[J];法制博覽(中旬刊);2012年12期

6 周密;;刑事訴訟證據(jù)是“主觀、客觀矛盾的統(tǒng)一體”嗎?[J];法學(xué)研究;1964年04期

7 王凈;;關(guān)于刑事訴訟證據(jù)理論幾個(gè)問(wèn)題的商榷[J];法學(xué)研究;1964年04期

8 田靜仁;;關(guān)于刑事訴訟證據(jù)的客觀性和階級(jí)性問(wèn)題[J];法學(xué)研究;1964年02期

9 佟慶明;;對(duì)刑事訴訟證據(jù)問(wèn)題的幾點(diǎn)淺見(jiàn)[J];法學(xué)研究;1964年02期

10 前進(jìn);;談?wù)勑淌略V訟證據(jù)的階級(jí)性[J];法學(xué)研究;1964年03期

相關(guān)會(huì)議論文 前2條

1 王得穎;;在刑事司法實(shí)踐與立法交困中前行——刑事訴訟證據(jù)若干問(wèn)題芻議[A];當(dāng)代法學(xué)論壇（二○○九年第2輯）[C];2009年

2 何萍;王玉柱;;刑事訴訟證據(jù)制度的完善對(duì)出庭公訴工作的影響及其應(yīng)對(duì)[A];第八屆國(guó)家高級(jí)檢察官論壇論文集：證據(jù)制度的完善及新要求[C];2012年

相關(guān)重要報(bào)紙文章 前10條

1 李夢(mèng)云;如何將審計(jì)證據(jù)轉(zhuǎn)化為刑事訴訟證據(jù)[N];中國(guó)審計(jì)報(bào);2007年

2 河南省許昌市魏都區(qū)人民檢察院 劉廣明邋張廣志 鄭國(guó)成;稅務(wù)稽查報(bào)告不能直接作為刑事訴訟證據(jù)使用[N];檢察日?qǐng)?bào);2008年

3 慶安縣檢察院 陶亞潔;刑事訴訟證據(jù)應(yīng)注意的問(wèn)題[N];黑龍江經(jīng)濟(jì)報(bào);2011年

4 丁玉中;“單位證明”能否成為刑事訴訟證據(jù)[N];檢察日?qǐng)?bào);2004年

5 李俠;設(shè)立先悉權(quán),刑事訴訟證據(jù)先摸底[N];江蘇法制報(bào);2007年

6 茍琨 陶冬梅;刑事訴訟證據(jù)和附帶民事訴訟證據(jù)出現(xiàn)沖突怎么辦[N];檢察日?qǐng)?bào);2005年

7 案例編寫(xiě)人 江蘇省南通市中級(jí)人民法院 杜開(kāi)林 陳偉;行政執(zhí)法中收集的言詞證據(jù)不可直接作為刑事訴訟證據(jù)[N];人民法院報(bào);2013年

8 記者 崔潔 肖水金 通訊員 徐曉紅 談蓉;網(wǎng)絡(luò)色情犯罪呈上升趨勢(shì)[N];檢察日?qǐng)?bào);2014年

9 ;拿者索賄的“借條”何以能打贏民事官司[N];檢察日?qǐng)?bào);2003年

10 記者 徐日丹;確保每一起案件經(jīng)得起歷史的檢驗(yàn)[N];檢察日?qǐng)?bào);2010年

相關(guān)碩士學(xué)位論文 前10條

1 文昕;論刑事訴訟證據(jù)裁判原則[D];鄭州大學(xué);2016年

2 陳江華;紀(jì)檢監(jiān)察證據(jù)與刑事訴訟證據(jù)比較研究[D];中國(guó)政法大學(xué);2007年

3 段春曦;紀(jì)檢監(jiān)察證據(jù)與刑事訴訟證據(jù)比較及轉(zhuǎn)換有關(guān)問(wèn)題思考[D];中國(guó)政法大學(xué);2009年

4 趙慧;論我國(guó)刑事訴訟證據(jù)規(guī)則的完善[D];山東大學(xué);2006年

5 孫向欣;論古代刑事訴訟證據(jù)[D];吉林大學(xué);2008年

6 王艷敏;刑事訴訟證據(jù)規(guī)則研究[D];中國(guó)政法大學(xué);2006年

7 陸詠歌;刑事訴訟證據(jù)及證明之初探[D];鄭州大學(xué);2002年

8 趙小強(qiáng);刑事訴訟證據(jù)關(guān)聯(lián)性研究[D];青島大學(xué);2008年

9 蘭妍梅;我國(guó)刑事訴訟證據(jù)規(guī)則改革與人權(quán)保障[D];廣西師范大學(xué);2002年

10 雷經(jīng)升;刑事訴訟證據(jù)規(guī)則論綱[D];安徽大學(xué);2001年

，

本文編號(hào)：1387945