本文選題：檢察機關(guān) + 證明責(zé)任　； 參考：《西南政法大學(xué)》2014年碩士論文

【摘要】：在刑事證明責(zé)任理論中，證明責(zé)任的保障機制系極為重要的命題。近年來，隨著刑事證據(jù)制度改革的深入，諸多法律條款及司法解釋直接間接地涉及檢察機關(guān)承擔(dān)證明責(zé)任的基本保障問題。但此一命題涉及面極廣：在規(guī)則內(nèi)容上，涵蓋了證據(jù)規(guī)則、程序規(guī)則和組織規(guī)則；在訴訟階段上，跨越了偵查、起訴和審判三大程序。且由于直面司法實踐，現(xiàn)有的理論研究幾乎很難全面、深刻而又貼近實務(wù)的需要�；诖耍瑱z察機關(guān)履行證明責(zé)任的保障機制研究才更需要理論的突破和實踐的支持。 檢察機關(guān)履行證明責(zé)任，就證明對象來說，既包含實體性事實的證明，亦包含程序性事實的證明，二者緊密結(jié)合，不可偏廢。本文在理論分析的基礎(chǔ)上，結(jié)合實際案例來全面探討檢察機關(guān)履行證明責(zé)任保障機制的制度缺陷和實踐難題，在此基礎(chǔ)上提出如何建構(gòu)檢察機關(guān)履行證明責(zé)任的保障機制，以促使檢察機關(guān)有效地履行證明責(zé)任。 本文共分為五部分。 第一部分：證明責(zé)任及其保障機制。本部分主要對檢察機關(guān)履行證明責(zé)任進行重新定義，新的定義有助于全面把握檢察機關(guān)履行證明責(zé)任的基本內(nèi)涵。并對證明責(zé)任保障機制進行類型化分析，分析這些穩(wěn)定的、系統(tǒng)的機制保障是檢察機關(guān)履行證明責(zé)任的必要前提。作者認為，應(yīng)從結(jié)構(gòu)功能主義的角度對檢察機關(guān)履行證明責(zé)任保障機制進行功能定位，指出建構(gòu)我國檢察機關(guān)履行證明責(zé)任保障機制的重要性和必要性。 第二部分：證明責(zé)任保障機制的制度內(nèi)容。本部分主要從三方面闡述檢察機關(guān)履行證明責(zé)任保障機制的制度內(nèi)容，即證據(jù)規(guī)則機制、程序規(guī)則機制和組織制度機制。證據(jù)規(guī)則保障機制包括非法證據(jù)排除規(guī)則、證據(jù)裁判規(guī)則和證據(jù)質(zhì)證規(guī)則；程序規(guī)則機制包含程序監(jiān)督規(guī)則、程序制裁規(guī)則和程序救濟規(guī)則；組織制度機制包含組織內(nèi)部保障和組織外部保障。 第三部分：證明責(zé)任保障機制的制度缺陷。本部分通過從司法實務(wù)中選取有針對性的案例來分析檢察機關(guān)履行證明責(zé)任保障機制的現(xiàn)實困境，介紹了阻礙檢察機關(guān)履行證明責(zé)任保障機制的制度障礙，并從實體法、程序法和證據(jù)法的角度對證明責(zé)任保障機制的制度障礙進行了深入的剖析。這些制度上的缺陷導(dǎo)致檢察機關(guān)不能有效地履行其證明責(zé)任，指出一貫的傳統(tǒng)證明模式和與之不相適應(yīng)的制度缺陷導(dǎo)致檢察機關(guān)在新刑訴法實施的背景下已不能完成其使命。 第四部分：證明責(zé)任保障機制的司法實踐困境。本部分將通過案例分析的形式逐一剖析保障機制在司法實踐中的困境，指出這些現(xiàn)實困境和上文分析中的制度障礙嚴重影響了檢察機關(guān)有效地履行證明責(zé)任。在此背景下，才需要重新構(gòu)建檢察機關(guān)履行證明責(zé)任保障機制的實現(xiàn)路徑。 第五部分：證明責(zé)任保障機制的實現(xiàn)路徑。本部分在上述問題的基礎(chǔ)上提出解決問題的路徑選擇和制度構(gòu)想。首先，必須完善證據(jù)規(guī)則的設(shè)置；其次，必須構(gòu)建庭審的實質(zhì)化審理機制，加強法院說理和督促法院實現(xiàn)當庭裁判的功能；最后，，建立檢警協(xié)商的保障機制，搭建溝通平臺，實現(xiàn)檢察對偵查的引導(dǎo)和監(jiān)督。
[Abstract]:In the theory of criminal proof responsibility , it is very important to prove the mechanism of responsibility . In recent years , with the deepening of the reform of the criminal evidence system , many legal provisions and judicial interpretation directly involve the basic guarantee of the burden of proof .
At the stage of the litigation , the three procedures of investigation , prosecution and trial are crossed . As a result of the direct judicial practice , the existing theoretical research is hardly comprehensive , profound and close to the needs of the practice . Based on this , the investigation of the guarantee mechanism of the burden of proof of the procuratorial organ needs the support of theoretical breakthrough and practice .

On the basis of the theoretical analysis , the author discusses how to construct the safeguard mechanism of the procuratorial organs to fulfill the burden of proof , so as to prompt the procuratorial organs to carry out the burden of proof effectively .

This paper is divided into five parts .

The first part is to prove the responsibility and its safeguard mechanism . This part mainly redefines the burden of proof to the procuratorial organs . The new definition will help to grasp the basic connotation of the burden of proof of the procuratorial organs . The author thinks that the function orientation of the guarantee mechanism of the burden of proof should be carried out from the angle of structural functionalism . It points out the importance and necessity of constructing the guarantee mechanism of proof of responsibility of the procuratorial organs in our country .

The second part is to prove the system contents of the responsibility guarantee mechanism . This part mainly expounds the system contents of the guarantee mechanism of the burden of proof of the procuratorial organs from three aspects , namely , the rules of evidence rule , the mechanism of procedure rules and the mechanism of the organization system . The evidence rule safeguard mechanism includes illegal evidence rule , evidence rule and evidence rule ;
The procedure rule mechanism includes program supervision rule , program sanction rule and procedure remedy rule ;
The organizational system mechanism includes intra - organization safeguards and organizational external safeguards .

The third part is to prove the system defect of the responsibility guarantee mechanism . This part analyzes the practical plight of the guarantee mechanism of the burden of proof by selecting the specific cases from the judicial practice , and introduces the systematic obstacles which prevent the procuratorial organs from fulfilling the guarantee mechanism of the burden of proof . The defects in these systems lead to the inability of the procuratorial organs to carry out their burden of proof effectively . The defects of these systems lead to the procuratorial organs failing to carry out their burden of proof effectively , pointing out that the traditional proof pattern and the system defects which are incompatible with them lead to the procuratorial organs unable to complete their mission under the background of the implementation of the new criminal procedure law .

The fourth part is to prove the dilemma of the judicial practice of the responsibility guarantee mechanism . This part will analyze the plight of the safeguard mechanism in judicial practice one by one through case analysis , and point out that these realistic difficulties and the institutional obstacles in the above analysis seriously affect the effective performance of the burden of proof . In this context , it is only necessary to reconstruct the fulfillment path of the guarantee mechanism of proof of responsibility of the procuratorial organ .

The fifth part is to prove the realization path of the responsibility safeguard mechanism . This part puts forward the path choice and the system idea of solving the problem on the basis of the above - mentioned problems . First , it is necessary to improve the setting of evidence rule ;
Secondly , it is necessary to construct the essence trial mechanism of the court , strengthen the court ' s reasoning and urge the court to realize the function of the court decision ;
Finally , establish the security mechanism of the police and police consultation , build the communication platform , and realize the inspection and guidance and supervision .

【學(xué)位授予單位】：西南政法大學(xué)
【學(xué)位級別】：碩士
【學(xué)位授予年份】：2014
【分類號】：D925.2

【參考文獻】

相關(guān)期刊論文 前10條

1 霍海紅;;證明責(zé)任:一個功能的視角[J];北大法律評論;2005年01期

2 劉哲瑋;;論美國法上的證明責(zé)任——以訴訟程序為視角[J];當代法學(xué);2010年03期

3 李昌林;論檢察官的客觀義務(wù)[J];中國司法;2004年08期

4 房保國;;非法證據(jù)排除規(guī)則的實證分析[J];中國司法;2011年06期

5 陳衛(wèi)東,劉計劃;關(guān)于完善我國刑事證明標準體系的若干思考[J];法律科學(xué).西北政法學(xué)院學(xué)報;2001年03期

6 熊秋紅;對刑事證明標準的思考——以刑事證明中的可能性和確定性為視角[J];法商研究;2003年01期

7 裴蒼齡;;構(gòu)建全面的證明責(zé)任體系[J];法商研究;2007年05期

8 高一飛;陳海平;;我國偵查權(quán)多重制約體系的重構(gòu)[J];中國人民公安大學(xué)學(xué)報(社會科學(xué)版);2007年01期

9 崔敏;刑事證明責(zé)任概論[J];江蘇警官學(xué)院學(xué)報;2003年01期

10 謝佑平;;檢察機關(guān)與非法證據(jù)排除[J];中國檢察官;2010年21期

本文編號：1796711