本文選題：刑事質(zhì)證 + 質(zhì)證程序��； 參考：《湘潭大學(xué)》2007年碩士論文

【摘要】： 質(zhì)證是司法證明的基本環(huán)節(jié),同時又是庭審活動的必經(jīng)程序。其對于法官正確認(rèn)定證據(jù)、保障控辯雙方實現(xiàn)自己的訴訟主張、以及對隨后法庭辯論的進(jìn)行等方面發(fā)揮著有利的作用。質(zhì)證的目的不僅僅是為法官隨后的認(rèn)證提供一個過濾裝置,更重要的是為被告方參與到法庭審判中、為其展示自己的證據(jù)以及反駁對方的證據(jù)提供了一個平臺,可以說,質(zhì)證是發(fā)現(xiàn)案件真實、維護(hù)司法公正的必然要求。質(zhì)證的本質(zhì)在于“質(zhì)”,即對對方證據(jù)的質(zhì)疑和質(zhì)問,帶有當(dāng)面對抗的性質(zhì),因此,質(zhì)證的有效運行需要控辯對抗的訴訟結(jié)構(gòu)。然而,我國目前的刑事庭審就是對抗性不足,依然保留了較為濃厚的法官訊問式色彩,這使庭審質(zhì)證效果大打折扣。除此之外,質(zhì)證制度本身是否科學(xué)對質(zhì)證功能的發(fā)揮也有很大影響。從法律有關(guān)質(zhì)證的表述來看,無論是79年還是96年刑事訴訟法,“質(zhì)證”一詞都只是出現(xiàn)在證據(jù)有關(guān)條文的表述中,是作為證人證言審查判斷的重要活動之一。而在普通審判程序的有關(guān)條文中沒有對“質(zhì)證”一詞作出明確的規(guī)定,也沒有對質(zhì)證的運作程序等作出具體的安排,質(zhì)證作為庭審必經(jīng)程序的地位未得到凸現(xiàn)。立法對質(zhì)證規(guī)定的簡單、粗糙,造成了實踐中缺乏可操作性,雖然司法解釋在一定程度上彌補了立法的不足,但還是不能解決審判實踐中的操作困難。而且法律對質(zhì)證制度的相關(guān)配套制度規(guī)定得也很不完善,如立法上沒有建立保障證人、鑒定人出庭的一系列制度。因此,深入研究刑事質(zhì)證制度具有重要的理論意義和現(xiàn)實意義。 筆者認(rèn)為刑事質(zhì)證制度的完善,首先要從宏觀上轉(zhuǎn)變訴訟結(jié)構(gòu),主要是增加庭審的當(dāng)事人主義色彩,增強庭審的對抗性,同時要注意度的把握,不能盲目當(dāng)事人化,一味地強調(diào)對抗,而應(yīng)當(dāng)是在法官主持下的控辯之間的平等對抗。其次,要建立科學(xué)的質(zhì)證程序,筆者認(rèn)為對于質(zhì)證程序的完善主要是借鑒英美的交叉詢問,交叉詢問應(yīng)作為我國控辯式庭審中的主要質(zhì)證方式,并在此基礎(chǔ)上來具體安排程序的運作。同時,法律也應(yīng)進(jìn)一步完善質(zhì)證所需的規(guī)則,以增加質(zhì)證的可操作性。最后,就是要建立和健全保障質(zhì)證有效運行所需的相關(guān)配套措施。
[Abstract]:Cross-examination is the basic link of judicial proof and the necessary procedure of trial activity. It plays a favorable role in the judge's correct identification of evidence, the protection of the prosecution and the defence to realize their own claims, and the subsequent court debate. The purpose of cross-examination is not only to provide a filtering device for the subsequent authentication of the judge, but more importantly to provide a platform for the defence to participate in court trials, to present its own evidence and to refute the other party's evidence. Cross-examination is the inevitable requirement to find out the truth of the case and to maintain the judicial justice. The essence of cross-examination lies in "quality", that is, the questioning and questioning of the other party's evidence has the nature of face to face confrontation. Therefore, the effective operation of cross-examination needs the litigation structure of prosecution and defense confrontation. However, the present criminal trial in our country is lack of adversarial, and it still retains the strong color of judge interrogation, which greatly reduces the effect of cross-examination. In addition, the cross-examination system itself has a great impact on the function of cross-examination. According to the expression of cross-examination in law, no matter in 79 years or 96 years of criminal procedure law, the word "cross-examination" appears only in the expression of relevant provisions of evidence, and it is one of the important activities in the examination and judgment of witness testimony. However, in the relevant provisions of the ordinary trial procedure, there is no clear stipulation on the word "cross-examination", and no specific arrangement is made for the operation procedure of cross-examination, and the status of cross-examination as a necessary procedure in the trial has not been highlighted. Because of the simplicity and roughness of the legislation on cross-examination, there is a lack of maneuverability in practice. Although the judicial interpretation makes up for the deficiency of legislation to a certain extent, it still can not solve the operational difficulties in trial practice. And the relevant supporting system of cross-examination system is not perfect, such as legislation does not establish a series of systems to protect witnesses and experts to appear in court. Therefore, the in-depth study of criminal cross-examination system has important theoretical and practical significance. The author thinks that in order to perfect the system of criminal cross-examination, we should change the structure of litigation from the macro perspective, mainly increase the color of litigant doctrine in the trial, strengthen the adversarial of the trial, at the same time, we should grasp the degree of attention, not blindly turn the parties. Instead of emphasizing confrontation, it should be an equal confrontation between charges and arguments under the authority of a judge. Secondly, to establish a scientific cross-examination procedure, the author thinks that the perfection of cross-examination procedure is mainly to learn from the cross-examination of the United States and the United States, and cross-examination should be the main way of cross-examination in the prosecution and defense court in our country. And on this basis to the specific arrangements for the operation of the procedure. At the same time, the law should further improve the rules required for cross-examination in order to increase the operability of cross-examination. Finally, it is necessary to establish and improve the effective operation of cross-examination necessary supporting measures.
【學(xué)位授予單位】：湘潭大學(xué)
【學(xué)位級別】：碩士
【學(xué)位授予年份】：2007
【分類號】：D925.23

【參考文獻(xiàn)】

相關(guān)期刊論文 前10條

1 鄧治軍;論我國民事訴訟中的質(zhì)證制度[J];當(dāng)代法學(xué);2000年05期

2 王俊民;論跨世紀(jì)中國司法改革的八大觀念認(rèn)識障礙[J];法學(xué);2000年09期

3 邵華;我國庭審質(zhì)證制度的缺陷及理論出路[J];甘肅政法學(xué)院學(xué)報;2001年01期

4 周慶春,應(yīng)永宏;刑事辯護(hù)中質(zhì)證的要點和技巧初探[J];河北法學(xué);2000年03期

5 王超,周菁;論完善我國刑事質(zhì)證制度的必由之路[J];華東政法學(xué)院學(xué)報;2003年05期

6 譚兵，黃勝春;論我國民事訴訟中的質(zhì)證制度[J];海南大學(xué)學(xué)報(社會科學(xué)版);1995年03期

7 王麗,高麗溶;刑事訴訟質(zhì)證制度的完善[J];檢察實踐;2003年05期

8 李建明;刑事庭審質(zhì)證形式主義現(xiàn)象之批判[J];江蘇社會科學(xué);2005年03期

9 葉向陽;質(zhì)證制度及立法之完善[J];法學(xué)研究;1995年02期

10 薛拴良,盧永紅;論刑事訴訟中的法庭質(zhì)證[J];蘭州大學(xué)學(xué)報;1999年02期

，

本文編號：1866216