發(fā)布時(shí)間：2018-01-25 00:55

  本文關(guān)鍵詞： 質(zhì)證權(quán) 基本權(quán)利 理論基礎(chǔ) 完善機(jī)制　出處：《南京師范大學(xué)》2014年碩士論文　論文類型：學(xué)位論文

【摘要】：質(zhì)證權(quán)是國家憲法和國際人權(quán)公約規(guī)定的刑事被告人在刑事訴訟中享有的程序基本權(quán),也是刑事被告人獲得公正審判的最低限度的標(biāo)準(zhǔn)。質(zhì)證權(quán)作為保障刑事被告人獲得公正審判的基本權(quán)利,雖然起源于英國,但是卻因其具有超法系和訴訟結(jié)構(gòu)的普適價(jià)值,在世界范圍內(nèi)得到了普遍的承認(rèn),美國聯(lián)邦最高法院及歐洲人權(quán)法院對(duì)保障刑事被告人質(zhì)證權(quán)的享有做出了巨大的貢獻(xiàn),并對(duì)世界各國刑事訴訟產(chǎn)生了積極影響。作為一種程序性的基本權(quán)利,質(zhì)證權(quán)起到了保障刑事被告人基本權(quán)利、實(shí)現(xiàn)控辯平衡、和發(fā)現(xiàn)真實(shí)的多元作用,但是發(fā)現(xiàn)真實(shí)僅僅是質(zhì)證權(quán)的次要價(jià)值,即工具性價(jià)值,其核心價(jià)值在于保障刑事被告人的基本權(quán)利,實(shí)現(xiàn)公正審判,因此不能過分夸大質(zhì)證權(quán)發(fā)現(xiàn)真實(shí)的次要價(jià)值。質(zhì)證權(quán)的基礎(chǔ)理論來源于憲政理論中的維護(hù)人的尊嚴(yán)理論以及程序主體理論、實(shí)現(xiàn)控辯平衡及正當(dāng)程序的程序正義理論。質(zhì)證權(quán)具有自身獨(dú)立的理論基礎(chǔ)、價(jià)值、作用等,質(zhì)證權(quán)也就有別于辯護(hù)權(quán)、交叉詢問權(quán),是一項(xiàng)獨(dú)立的憲法權(quán)利。 在中國,證人不出庭作證成為刑事審判的常態(tài),在偵查階段取得的證人證言經(jīng)過公訴人有選擇性地宣讀后可以直接作為定案的依據(jù),這也成為冤假錯(cuò)案滋生的重要原因,這與憲法及刑事訴訟法規(guī)定的保障人權(quán)的要求相背離。這主要是因?yàn)槲覈鴳椃▽?duì)保障刑事被告人基本權(quán)利的程序性基本權(quán)利的缺失。在人權(quán)保障入憲,并成為刑事訴訟根本任務(wù)的改革背景下,確認(rèn)保障刑事被告人基本權(quán)利的程序性基本權(quán)利也就成為改革的關(guān)鍵所在。質(zhì)證權(quán)能夠推動(dòng)刑事司法公正的實(shí)現(xiàn),因此質(zhì)證權(quán)的確認(rèn)也就具有了內(nèi)在的必要性。清末民初以來的立法及司法實(shí)踐,美國聯(lián)邦最高法院以及歐洲人權(quán)法院關(guān)于質(zhì)證權(quán)理論內(nèi)涵的詳細(xì)闡述以及制度保障實(shí)踐,經(jīng)濟(jì)技術(shù)的發(fā)展等都為我國質(zhì)證權(quán)的確認(rèn)提供了有益的條件。因此,在反思國內(nèi)現(xiàn)狀、借鑒國外制度的基礎(chǔ)上提出一些初步設(shè)想：以憲法確認(rèn)為基礎(chǔ),為刑事訴訟法的修改明確上位法依據(jù)；并在司法實(shí)踐中完善質(zhì)證權(quán)的保障制度及程序,從憲政層面完善刑事司法體制,實(shí)現(xiàn)刑事司法的公正,實(shí)現(xiàn)人權(quán)保障的憲政目的。
[Abstract]:The right of cross-examination is the basic procedural right of the criminal defendants in criminal proceedings as stipulated in the national constitution and international human rights conventions. It is also the minimum standard for the criminal defendant to obtain a fair trial. The right of cross-examination is the basic right to guarantee the criminal defendant to obtain a fair trial, although it originated in Britain. However, because of its universal value of super-legal system and litigation structure, it has been universally recognized in the world. The United States Supreme Court and the European Court of Human Rights have made great contributions to the protection of the right to cross-examination of criminal defendants, and have had a positive impact on the criminal proceedings in various countries in the world. As a procedural fundamental right, the United States Court of Justice and the European Court of Human Rights have made great contributions. The right of cross-examination plays an important role in protecting the basic rights of the criminal defendant, realizing the balance between prosecution and defense, and discovering the truth, but finding the truth is only the secondary value of the right of cross-examination, that is, the instrumental value. Its core value lies in the protection of the basic rights of the criminal defendant and the realization of fair trial. The basic theory of cross-examination right comes from the theory of safeguarding human dignity and the theory of procedural subject in constitutional theory. The right of cross-examination has its own independent theoretical basis, value, function and so on. The right of cross-examination is different from the right of defense and the right of cross-examination. Is an independent constitutional right. In China, witness failure to testify in court has become the norm of criminal trial, and the witness testimony obtained in the investigation stage can be read out selectively by the public prosecutor, which can be used as the basis for the determination of the case directly. This has also become an important reason for the breeding of false and wrong cases. This deviates from the requirement of protecting human rights stipulated in the Constitution and the Criminal procedure Law. This is mainly due to the absence of the procedural fundamental rights of the criminal defendants in our Constitution and the constitutional protection of human rights. And become the fundamental task of the reform of the background of criminal proceedings, the recognition of the basic rights of criminal defendants to protect the basic procedural rights is also the key to reform. The right to cross-examination can promote the realization of criminal justice. Therefore, the confirmation of the right of cross-examination also has the inherent necessity. The legislative and judicial practice since the end of the Qing Dynasty and the beginning of the Republic of China. The United States Federal Supreme Court and the European Court of Human Rights on the theoretical connotation of the right to cross-examination, as well as the practice of institutional protection, economic and technological development have provided beneficial conditions for the confirmation of the right to cross-examination in China. On the basis of reflecting on the present domestic situation and drawing lessons from foreign systems, this paper puts forward some tentative ideas: on the basis of constitutional confirmation, we should make clear the basis of superior law for the revision of criminal procedure law; In judicial practice, we should perfect the guarantee system and procedure of the right of cross-examination, perfect the criminal justice system from the constitutional level, realize the justice of criminal justice and realize the constitutional aim of human rights guarantee.
【學(xué)位授予單位】：南京師范大學(xué)
【學(xué)位級(jí)別】：碩士
【學(xué)位授予年份】：2014
【分類號(hào)】：D921;D925.2

【參考文獻(xiàn)】

相關(guān)期刊論文 前6條

1 易聯(lián)樹;吳佩林;;論我國公民權(quán)利意識(shí)的覺醒與發(fā)展[J];西華師范大學(xué)學(xué)報(bào)(哲學(xué)社會(huì)科學(xué)版);2005年06期

2 周寶峰;論犯罪嫌疑人、被告人訴訟權(quán)利的憲法化[J];內(nèi)蒙古大學(xué)學(xué)報(bào)(人文社會(huì)科學(xué)版);2004年01期

3 屈新;;刑事被告人質(zhì)證權(quán)的程序保障[J];中國政法大學(xué)學(xué)報(bào);2009年01期

4 黃源盛;;近代刑事訴訟的生成與展開——大理院關(guān)于刑事訴訟程序判決箋釋(1912—1914)[J];清華法學(xué);2006年02期

5 李累;;人的尊嚴(yán)的憲法保護(hù)[J];法治論叢(上海政法學(xué)院學(xué)報(bào));2009年04期

6 周偉;論刑事司法權(quán)利的憲法保護(hù)[J];政法論壇;2003年06期

，

本文編號(hào)：1461528