本文選題：非法證據(jù)排除規(guī)則 + 非法實(shí)物證據(jù)　； 參考：《重慶大學(xué)》2014年碩士論文

【摘要】：隨著社會法治的進(jìn)步和人權(quán)呼聲的不斷高漲，世界范圍內(nèi)對非法證據(jù)排除規(guī)則進(jìn)行了深入研究和探討，美國、英國的非法證據(jù)排除規(guī)則十分發(fā)達(dá)，且在刑事司法實(shí)踐中都得到廣泛的運(yùn)用。我國在非法證據(jù)排除規(guī)則方面經(jīng)歷了一個從有到無、從粗淺到不斷完善的發(fā)展過程。2010年兩高三部頒布的《兩個證據(jù)規(guī)定》，正式確立了我國非法證據(jù)排除規(guī)則；2012年我國第一次將“尊重和保障人權(quán)”寫進(jìn)新修訂的《刑事訴訟法》，在刑事訴訟領(lǐng)域正式確立了人權(quán)保障理念，并對非法證據(jù)排除規(guī)則作了進(jìn)一步的修改和完善。 目前在世界范圍內(nèi)的絕大多數(shù)國家，包括中國，對非法證據(jù)排除規(guī)則中非法言詞證據(jù)都形成了強(qiáng)制排除的基本態(tài)度，而對非法實(shí)物證據(jù)方面的規(guī)定則意見不一、各有差異。尤其在我國，偵查機(jī)關(guān)在司法實(shí)踐中非法取證的現(xiàn)象大量存在，我國現(xiàn)行對非法實(shí)物證據(jù)排除規(guī)則的法律規(guī)定又過于原則和粗淺，而國內(nèi)學(xué)者對非法實(shí)物證據(jù)排除規(guī)則的研究更是屈指可數(shù)。以此為出發(fā)點(diǎn)，本文將對我國刑事非法實(shí)物證據(jù)排除規(guī)則進(jìn)行梳理和剖析，探討我國構(gòu)建非法實(shí)物證據(jù)排除規(guī)則的必要及其完善的具體舉措。 本文除引言和結(jié)語外，，正文內(nèi)容共分為以下六部分： 第一部分，主要是關(guān)于刑事非法實(shí)物證據(jù)排除規(guī)則的概述，對證據(jù)本身意義價值、非法證據(jù)排除規(guī)則的產(chǎn)生、分類及非法實(shí)物證據(jù)排除規(guī)則的界定進(jìn)行梳理和論述；第二部分，針對我國構(gòu)建非法實(shí)物證據(jù)排除規(guī)則的必要性進(jìn)行分析，探討我國構(gòu)建及完善非法實(shí)物證據(jù)排除規(guī)則的需要；第三部分，主要是論述我國關(guān)于非法實(shí)物證據(jù)排除規(guī)則法律規(guī)制的發(fā)展歷程，也即我國非法實(shí)物證據(jù)排除規(guī)則的法律現(xiàn)狀。這一部分將重點(diǎn)闡述《兩個證據(jù)規(guī)定》開辟的新局面及新《刑事訴訟法》實(shí)現(xiàn)的新突破。第四部分，在我國法律規(guī)制現(xiàn)狀研究的基礎(chǔ)上，剖析挖掘我國現(xiàn)行非法實(shí)物證據(jù)排除規(guī)則當(dāng)中存在的缺陷和缺陷成因，這也是當(dāng)前我國非法實(shí)物證據(jù)排除規(guī)則面臨的主要問題及提出改善措施的依據(jù)。第五部分，將研究眼光轉(zhuǎn)向國外，對非法實(shí)物證據(jù)排除規(guī)則較為發(fā)達(dá)的國家如美國、英國、德國、日本的制度設(shè)計進(jìn)行介紹，并從四國的立法經(jīng)驗(yàn)中吸取對我國有利的部分。第六部分，在充分考慮我國實(shí)際現(xiàn)狀及借鑒國外經(jīng)驗(yàn)的基礎(chǔ)上，筆者提出的完善我國非法實(shí)物證據(jù)排除規(guī)則的構(gòu)想，將非法實(shí)物證據(jù)排除規(guī)則分類為“實(shí)質(zhì)性違法的非法實(shí)物證據(jù)”和“程序瑕疵性的非法實(shí)物證據(jù)”兩種排除模式，并提出增加“毒樹之果”排除規(guī)則以及完善排除程序和構(gòu)建配套措施的具體建議。
[Abstract]:With the progress of social rule of law and the rising voice of human rights, the rule of exclusion of illegal evidence has been deeply studied and discussed in the world, and the rules of exclusion of illegal evidence in the United States and Britain are very developed. And in the practice of criminal justice are widely used. Our country has experienced a rule of exclusion of illegal evidence from having to nothing. The "two evidential regulations" promulgated by the two High and three Ministries in 2010 formally established the exclusion rules of illegal evidence in China; in 2012, China first wrote "respect and protect Human Rights" in the newly revised "punishment". The Code of procedure formally established the concept of human rights protection in the field of criminal proceedings. And the rule of exclusion of illegal evidence has been further modified and perfected. At present, the vast majority of countries in the world, including China, have formed the basic attitude of compulsory exclusion of illegal verbal evidence in the exclusion rules of illegal evidence, but the provisions on illegal physical evidence are different and different. Especially in our country, the phenomenon of illegal collection of evidence exists in the judicial practice of investigation organs, and the current legal provisions on the exclusion rules of illegal physical evidence in our country are too principled and superficial. But the domestic scholar to the illegal physical evidence exclusion rule research is even more few. Taking this as a starting point, this paper will comb and analyze the exclusion rules of criminal illegal material evidence in our country, and discuss the necessity of constructing the exclusion rules of illegal material evidence in our country and the concrete measures to perfect them. In addition to the introduction and conclusion, the text is divided into the following six parts: The first part, mainly about the criminal illegal material evidence exclusion rule outline, to the evidence itself significance value, the illegal evidence exclusion rule generation, the classification and the illegal physical evidence exclusion rule definition carries on the comb and the elaboration; the second part, Based on the analysis of the necessity of constructing the exclusion rules of illegal physical evidence in our country, the paper discusses the need of constructing and perfecting the exclusion rules of illegal physical evidence in our country; the third part, This paper mainly discusses the development course of the legal regulation on the exclusion rules of illegal physical evidence in our country, that is, the legal status quo of the exclusionary rules of illegal physical evidence in our country. This part will focus on the new situation opened up by the "two evidences" and the new breakthrough of the new "Criminal procedure Law". The fourth part, on the basis of the study of the current situation of legal regulation in our country, analyzes and excavates the defects and causes of defects existing in the current exclusion rules of illegal physical evidence in our country. This is also the main problem faced by the exclusion rules of illegal physical evidence in our country and the basis of improving measures. The fifth part introduces the system design of the developed countries such as the United States, Britain, Germany and Japan, and draws the beneficial part from the four countries' legislative experience. In the sixth part, on the basis of fully considering the actual situation of our country and drawing on the experience of foreign countries, the author puts forward the idea of perfecting the exclusion rules of illegal physical evidence in our country. The exclusion rules of illegal physical evidence are classified as "illegal material evidence of material violation" and "illegal material evidence of procedural defects". It also puts forward some concrete suggestions on how to add the "fruit of poison tree" and how to perfect the exclusion procedure and construct the matching measures.
【學(xué)位授予單位】：重慶大學(xué)
【學(xué)位級別】：碩士
【學(xué)位授予年份】：2014
【分類號】：D925.23

【參考文獻(xiàn)】

相關(guān)期刊論文 前8條

1 楊宇冠;非法證據(jù)排除規(guī)則的例外[J];比較法研究;2003年03期

2 王冠;論非法獲得的實(shí)物證據(jù)之證據(jù)能力[J];廣西政法管理干部學(xué)院學(xué)報;2003年05期

3 唐治祥;非法實(shí)物證據(jù)排除規(guī)則在英美存在差異的緣由[J];經(jīng)濟(jì)與社會發(fā)展;2005年04期

4 卓澤淵;;依法治國中的依法執(zhí)政[J];上海行政學(xué)院學(xué)報;2010年04期

5 大衛(wèi)·希塞爾;汪建成;張曉秦;;我們能向英國法院對非法所得證據(jù)的探討學(xué)些什么?[J];國外法學(xué);1985年04期

6 陳光中;;刑事證據(jù)制度改革若干理論與實(shí)踐問題之探討——以兩院三部《兩個證據(jù)規(guī)定》之公布為視角[J];中國法學(xué);2010年06期

7 陳瑞華;;非法證據(jù)排除規(guī)則的中國模式[J];中國法學(xué);2010年06期

8 詹姆斯·菲利普;黃紹芬;李浩;;證據(jù)[J];環(huán)球法律評論;1984年02期

本文編號：1882801