本文選題：非法證據(jù) + 立法　； 參考：《中南林業(yè)科技大學(xué)》2017年碩士論文

【摘要】：非法證據(jù)排除規(guī)則寫入我國(guó)《刑事訴訟法》已有四年,最高人民法院與最高人民檢察院也相繼通過(guò)司法解釋,對(duì)有關(guān)法律條款的適用性作出了進(jìn)一步的解釋與規(guī)定。同樣,有關(guān)于非法證據(jù)排除規(guī)則在《刑訴法》中的適用問(wèn)題也被學(xué)者們廣泛關(guān)注。一個(gè)國(guó)家的非法證據(jù)排除規(guī)則不僅僅是一個(gè)國(guó)家法制健全與否的衡量標(biāo)準(zhǔn),更是衡量一個(gè)國(guó)家司法民主化、文明化程度的重要指標(biāo)。要達(dá)到預(yù)期的法律效果,推動(dòng)我國(guó)法治社會(huì)進(jìn)程,不但要構(gòu)建非法證據(jù)排除規(guī)則,更應(yīng)當(dāng)在推進(jìn)過(guò)程中對(duì)非法證據(jù)排除的對(duì)象、非法證據(jù)排除程序和國(guó)外非法證據(jù)排除規(guī)則進(jìn)行詳盡分析的基礎(chǔ)上,發(fā)展和完善非法證據(jù)排除規(guī)則的相關(guān)立法。文章首先對(duì)非法證據(jù)排除規(guī)則相關(guān)理論基礎(chǔ)做了簡(jiǎn)要概述。非法證據(jù)排除對(duì)象包括非法言詞證據(jù)以及非法實(shí)物證據(jù)。研究了非法證據(jù)排除規(guī)則的適用范圍。然后簡(jiǎn)要闡述了我國(guó)非法證據(jù)排除規(guī)則在刑事訴訟中的立法演變,對(duì)我國(guó)非法證據(jù)規(guī)則在刑事訴訟活動(dòng)中非法證據(jù)范圍,非法證據(jù)排除程序,庭審中非法證據(jù)證明制度以及暫未規(guī)定“毒樹(shù)之果”的排除規(guī)則等相關(guān)問(wèn)題進(jìn)行了提出與討論。選取兩大法系具有代表性國(guó)家的非法證據(jù)排除規(guī)則進(jìn)行了考察,得出了對(duì)我國(guó)的啟示。最后提出了對(duì)我國(guó)非法證據(jù)排除規(guī)則的完善建議。建議立法中增加證人強(qiáng)制出庭作證相關(guān)規(guī)定,保證非法證據(jù)排除程序中法官對(duì)證人證言的審查;對(duì)將有可能影響是否排除該物證、書證的決定的因素,進(jìn)行分級(jí),通過(guò)加權(quán)公式而得出相應(yīng)的得分,根據(jù)不同等級(jí)的得分作為該物證、書證是否予以排除的指標(biāo);排除重復(fù)自白證據(jù)。在完善庭前會(huì)議功能方面,審判人員應(yīng)該作出與庭審階段相同的非法證據(jù)合法性調(diào)查,并且在非法證據(jù)合法性調(diào)查結(jié)束后,將調(diào)查結(jié)果告知訴訟參與人,并作出是否認(rèn)定為定案根據(jù)的決定。完善對(duì)庭審階段非法證據(jù)排除程序方面,設(shè)立獨(dú)立的程序性裁判程序;對(duì)一些因被告方自身不可抗拒或無(wú)法預(yù)料的因素導(dǎo)致沒(méi)有提出申請(qǐng)的情況,賦予被告方在上訴時(shí)再次提出非法證據(jù)排除申請(qǐng)的權(quán)利。對(duì)非法證據(jù)證明制度進(jìn)行更明確的規(guī)定。對(duì)“毒樹(shù)之果”進(jìn)行倫理分析,在“毒樹(shù)之果”的取證規(guī)則構(gòu)建進(jìn)行了試論。作者希望,通過(guò)對(duì)我國(guó)非法證據(jù)排除規(guī)則的深入分析與解讀,運(yùn)用比較研究方法、實(shí)證研究方法,結(jié)合中國(guó)現(xiàn)實(shí)國(guó)情,提出相應(yīng)立法完善方案,以推進(jìn)我國(guó)司法民主、文明程度越高,人權(quán)保障愈加完善。
[Abstract]:The rule of exclusion of illegal evidence has been written into the Criminal procedure Law of China for four years. The Supreme people's Court and the Supreme people's Procuratorate have also made further interpretations and regulations on the applicability of relevant legal provisions through judicial interpretation. Similarly, the application of the rule of exclusion of illegal evidence in the Criminal procedure Law has been widely concerned by scholars. The exclusionary rule of illegal evidence in a country is not only a measure of whether a country's legal system is sound or not, but also an important index to measure the degree of judicial democratization and civilization in a country. In order to achieve the expected legal effect and promote the social process of rule of law in our country, we should not only construct the rule of exclusion of illegal evidence, but also the object of exclusion of illegal evidence in the process of advancement. On the basis of detailed analysis of illegal evidence exclusion procedure and foreign illegal evidence exclusion rules, the relevant legislation of illegal evidence exclusion rules is developed and perfected. At first, the paper gives a brief overview of the theoretical basis of the rule of exclusion of illegal evidence. The excluded objects of illegal evidence include illegal verbal evidence and illegal physical evidence. The scope of application of the rule of exclusion of illegal evidence is studied. Then it briefly expounds the legislative evolution of the exclusionary rules of illegal evidence in criminal proceedings in our country. The scope of illegal evidence and the procedure of excluding illegal evidence in criminal proceedings are discussed. The system of illegal evidence proof and the exclusion rule of "fruit of poison tree" are put forward and discussed. The exclusion rules of illegal evidence in the representative countries of two legal systems are selected to investigate, and the enlightenment to our country is obtained. Finally, some suggestions are put forward to perfect the rule of exclusion of illegal evidence in our country. It is suggested that relevant provisions should be added to the legislation to ensure the judge's examination of the witness's testimony in the procedure of excluding illegal evidence, and to grade the factors that may affect the decision of whether to exclude the material evidence or the documentary evidence. The corresponding score is obtained by the weighted formula. According to the scores of different grades, whether the documentary evidence is excluded or not and whether the repeated confession evidence is excluded is regarded as the index of whether the documentary evidence is excluded. In order to improve the functions of the pre-trial meeting, the judges should conduct the same investigation of the legality of illegal evidence as at the trial stage, and inform the participants of the proceedings of the results of the investigation after the conclusion of the investigation of the legality of the illegal evidence. And make a decision as to whether or not to determine the basis of the decision. To improve the procedure for excluding illegal evidence during the trial, to establish an independent procedural adjudication procedure; to establish an independent procedural adjudication procedure; and to deal with cases in which no application has been filed due to irresistible or unpredictable factors of the defence itself, The defendant is granted the right to apply again for the exclusion of unlawful evidence on appeal. A clearer regulation of the system of proof of illegal evidence. This paper analyzes the ethics of "the fruit of poisonous tree", and tries to construct the rule of collecting evidence of "the fruit of poisonous tree". The author hopes that through the in-depth analysis and interpretation of the exclusionary rules of illegal evidence in China, the author will apply the comparative research method, the empirical research method and the actual situation of China to put forward the corresponding legislative perfection scheme in order to promote the judicial democracy in our country. The higher the level of civilization, the better the protection of human rights.
【學(xué)位授予單位】：中南林業(yè)科技大學(xué)
【學(xué)位級(jí)別】：碩士
【學(xué)位授予年份】：2017
【分類號(hào)】：D925.2

【相似文獻(xiàn)】

相關(guān)期刊論文 前10條

1 吳潔;;淺談非法證據(jù)排除規(guī)則的價(jià)值及其在我國(guó)的構(gòu)建[J];山西財(cái)經(jīng)大學(xué)學(xué)報(bào);2006年S1期

2 楊文兵;張國(guó)鋒;;非法證據(jù)排除規(guī)則價(jià)值分析[J];綏化學(xué)院學(xué)報(bào);2006年06期

3 徐鶴喃;;我國(guó)非法證據(jù)排除規(guī)則之多視角推動(dòng)[J];法學(xué);2007年01期

4 李鼎鼎;;淺析非法證據(jù)排除規(guī)則[J];內(nèi)蒙古師范大學(xué)學(xué)報(bào)(哲學(xué)社會(huì)科學(xué)版);2007年S1期

5 徐嘎;張丹;;我國(guó)非法證據(jù)排除制度的反思與重構(gòu)[J];山東審判;2009年04期

6 林則奘;;非法證據(jù)排除規(guī)則的迷失及破解[J];東方法學(xué);2009年06期

7 楊裕寧;李平盛;;論我國(guó)非法證據(jù)排除規(guī)則的不足與完善[J];商業(yè)文化(下半月);2011年04期

8 馬娟娟;;關(guān)于“非法證據(jù)排除規(guī)定”的評(píng)析[J];法制與社會(huì);2011年13期

9 宋士月;俞澤迪;;我國(guó)非法證據(jù)排除規(guī)定的困境與出路[J];湛江師范學(xué)院學(xué)報(bào);2011年05期

10 張雨萌;;我國(guó)非法證據(jù)排除程序的完善[J];遼寧公安司法管理干部學(xué)院學(xué)報(bào);2012年03期

相關(guān)會(huì)議論文 前10條

1 潘偉明;;刑事非法證據(jù)排除的困境與出路——以《“兩高三部”刑事非法證據(jù)排除規(guī)定》為視角[A];全國(guó)法院系統(tǒng)第二十二屆學(xué)術(shù)討論會(huì)論文集[C];2011年

2 田健偉;葛海濤;;監(jiān)所檢察視野下的非法證據(jù)排除問(wèn)題[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

3 尹暢;;非法證據(jù)排除規(guī)則給檢察工作帶來(lái)的挑戰(zhàn)與應(yīng)對(duì)策略研究[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

4 吳仁義;張鳳京;;“非法證據(jù)排除”的若干思考[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

5 邱晶;陳月飛;;非法證據(jù)排除規(guī)則在實(shí)踐中面臨的問(wèn)題及破解建議[A];第九屆國(guó)家高級(jí)檢察官論壇論文集：其他[C];2013年

6 溫輝;;非法證據(jù)排除規(guī)則的意義與責(zé)任——一種人權(quán)視角[A];第八屆國(guó)家高級(jí)檢察官論壇論文集：尊重和保障人權(quán)條款在刑事司法中的落實(shí)[C];2012年

7 維英;;論檢察機(jī)關(guān)如何貫徹落實(shí)非法證據(jù)排除制度[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

8 陳雷;;非法證據(jù)排除規(guī)則對(duì)自偵工作的影響[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

9 劉慧;李斌;;公訴工作中非法證據(jù)排除規(guī)則的適用[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

10 遲東軍;張瑞禎;;非法證據(jù)排除的實(shí)務(wù)研究[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 復(fù)旦大學(xué)法學(xué)院、上海市寶山區(qū)人民檢察院 馬貴翔 胡巧絨;非法證據(jù)排除三問(wèn)題研究[N];檢察日?qǐng)?bào);2013年

2 本報(bào)記者 楊傲多 本報(bào)通訊員 李嘉;內(nèi)江中院宣判四川“非法證據(jù)排除”第一案[N];法制日?qǐng)?bào);2013年

3 遼寧省大連市人民檢察院 王春蕾;非法證據(jù)排除規(guī)則是否適用于電子數(shù)據(jù)[N];檢察日?qǐng)?bào);2013年

4 本報(bào)評(píng)論員 王義偉;將“非法證據(jù)排除程序”進(jìn)行到底[N];中華工商時(shí)報(bào);2013年

5 黑龍江省鶴崗市興安區(qū)人民檢察院 謝麗;非法證據(jù)排除重在聽(tīng)取意見(jiàn)[N];檢察日?qǐng)?bào);2013年

6 李明 晟鏹;非法證據(jù)排除規(guī)則應(yīng)完善五項(xiàng)機(jī)制[N];江蘇法制報(bào);2013年

7 任能能 本報(bào)記者 侯建斌;非法證據(jù)排除的重點(diǎn)、難點(diǎn)和對(duì)策[N];法制日?qǐng)?bào);2014年

8 最高人民法院刑三庭庭長(zhǎng) 戴長(zhǎng)林;非法證據(jù)排除制度運(yùn)行效果簡(jiǎn)析[N];法制日?qǐng)?bào);2014年

9 記者 徐育　通訊員 王成玉;“非法證據(jù)排除規(guī)則試點(diǎn)項(xiàng)目”在鹽城啟動(dòng)[N];江蘇法制報(bào);2009年

10 李曉雯　江陰市檢察院提供;如何在司法實(shí)踐中 適用非法證據(jù)排除規(guī)則[N];江蘇法制報(bào);2009年

相關(guān)博士學(xué)位論文 前4條

1 張赫楠;非法證據(jù)排除證明機(jī)制研究[D];吉林大學(xué);2016年

2 謝佳宏;非法證據(jù)排除規(guī)則比較研究[D];中國(guó)政法大學(xué);2007年

3 楊宇冠;非法證據(jù)排除規(guī)則研究[D];中國(guó)政法大學(xué);2002年

4 杜學(xué)毅;中國(guó)非法證據(jù)排除規(guī)則構(gòu)建研究[D];吉林大學(xué);2013年

相關(guān)碩士學(xué)位論文 前10條

1 黃卓婭;關(guān)于刑事非法證據(jù)排除程序的探討[D];浙江工商大學(xué);2012年

2 張子龍;美國(guó)非法證據(jù)排除規(guī)則的歷史考察[D];西南政法大學(xué);2014年

3 張艷霞;檢察機(jī)關(guān)適用非法證據(jù)排除規(guī)則實(shí)證研究[D];中國(guó)社會(huì)科學(xué)院研究生院;2015年

4 邢邁;云技術(shù)環(huán)境下的電子數(shù)據(jù)取證分析[D];中國(guó)社會(huì)科學(xué)院研究生院;2015年

5 向煦;我國(guó)非法證據(jù)排除問(wèn)題研究[D];中國(guó)社會(huì)科學(xué)院研究生院;2015年

6 趙煒;非法證據(jù)排除規(guī)則及在審查逮捕階段的適用[D];河北大學(xué);2014年

7 金愛(ài)玲;中韓非法證據(jù)排除規(guī)則適用范圍比較研究[D];延邊大學(xué);2015年

8 楊雷振;完善職務(wù)犯罪非法證據(jù)排除規(guī)則的思考[D];鄭州大學(xué);2015年

9 趙書暉;論非法證據(jù)排除規(guī)則的完善[D];延邊大學(xué);2015年

10 陶樹(shù)聲;非法證據(jù)排除的證明機(jī)制研究[D];中國(guó)青年政治學(xué)院;2015年

，

本文編號(hào)：2017786