本文選題：刑事言詞證據(jù) + 證明力��； 參考：《遼寧大學(xué)》2014年碩士論文

【摘要】：刑事言詞證據(jù)專指那些應(yīng)用于刑事訴訟中的言詞證據(jù)，具體包括被告人口供、被害人陳述、證人證言和鑒定意見四類。由于刑事言詞證據(jù)所反映的案件事實(shí)的信息是由人的陳述表達(dá)出來的，因此人們可以主動(dòng)的提供相關(guān)的案件情況，從而對(duì)案件事實(shí)起到直接、真切、生動(dòng)的證明作用。然而，人的表述具有一定的主觀性，受各種因素影響，這種表述可能會(huì)出現(xiàn)失實(shí)的情況，若不能加以正確的判斷，很容易導(dǎo)致錯(cuò)誤認(rèn)定案件事實(shí)的發(fā)生，從而損害司法公正，因此，正確的評(píng)價(jià)和判斷刑事言詞證據(jù)的證明力是法官在認(rèn)證環(huán)節(jié)至關(guān)重要的任務(wù)，其對(duì)于案件事實(shí)的準(zhǔn)確認(rèn)定具有重大的意義。 受馬克思哲學(xué)理論中“具體問題具體分析”、“實(shí)事求是”的觀點(diǎn)影響，長期以來我國司法實(shí)踐一直堅(jiān)持對(duì)于證據(jù)的審查和判斷必須結(jié)合具體案情，而不能形成一套較為系統(tǒng)和完善的證據(jù)規(guī)則體系的觀點(diǎn)，但是隨著司法改革的不斷深入，我國司法實(shí)務(wù)界卻越來越傾向于制定一些評(píng)斷證據(jù)證明力的具體準(zhǔn)則，，用以規(guī)制法官的認(rèn)證行為。然而，證據(jù)法學(xué)領(lǐng)域內(nèi)的一些學(xué)者卻并不認(rèn)為這是正確的做法，他們對(duì)最高人民法院頒布的關(guān)于證據(jù)的司法解釋中對(duì)證明力的評(píng)斷規(guī)定進(jìn)行了猛烈的抨擊，同時(shí)，他們大力倡導(dǎo)大陸法系的“自由心證制度”于我國刑事審判的適用，并且進(jìn)一步認(rèn)為法官要想準(zhǔn)確地評(píng)斷證明力法律必須確立一系列旨在限制證據(jù)能力的證據(jù)規(guī)則，提高證據(jù)的“準(zhǔn)入門檻”，保證評(píng)斷的正確性。 基于這樣的背景，本文以刑事言詞證據(jù)為視角，對(duì)證據(jù)證明力的評(píng)斷問題加以研究：首先，本文系統(tǒng)闡述了關(guān)于證據(jù)證明力的基礎(chǔ)理論，厘清證明力與其他證據(jù)法學(xué)概念的界限，分析并且闡述評(píng)斷證明力行為的基本要素，以形成對(duì)證據(jù)的證明力及其評(píng)斷的基本認(rèn)識(shí)；其次，文章結(jié)合證據(jù)法理論中對(duì)刑事言詞證據(jù)的認(rèn)識(shí)和一些審判實(shí)踐經(jīng)驗(yàn)，分析并總結(jié)出評(píng)斷刑事言詞證據(jù)證明力的一般標(biāo)準(zhǔn)；最后，以這些標(biāo)準(zhǔn)為基礎(chǔ)，創(chuàng)設(shè)出一些評(píng)斷刑事言詞證據(jù)證明力的具體規(guī)則，以期法官對(duì)證據(jù)證明力的評(píng)斷在規(guī)則的指引下進(jìn)行。 本文認(rèn)為，無論是嘗試尋找評(píng)斷證據(jù)證明力所要遵循的一般準(zhǔn)則，還是以法律形式確定評(píng)斷證據(jù)證明力的操作規(guī)范，最為關(guān)鍵的是我國證據(jù)法學(xué)理論界必須進(jìn)行研究思維上的轉(zhuǎn)變，一方面，必須扯下“具體問題具體分析”的空洞旗號(hào)，承認(rèn)評(píng)斷證據(jù)證明力中的共同規(guī)律的存在；另一方面，在提倡“自由心證”的基礎(chǔ)上，必須意識(shí)到其不足之處，不能使“自由心證”絕對(duì)化，從而使它變成另一種模式的“具體問題具體分析”。在評(píng)斷證據(jù)證明力的問題上應(yīng)當(dāng)堅(jiān)持規(guī)則和自由裁量相結(jié)合的模式，以準(zhǔn)確的認(rèn)定案件事實(shí)。
[Abstract]:Criminal verbal evidence refers to the verbal evidence used in criminal proceedings, including the defendant's confession, the victim's statement, the witness's testimony and the expert opinion. Because the information of the fact of the case reflected by the evidence of criminal speech is expressed by the statement of the person, people can actively provide the relevant case information, thus the fact of the case plays a direct, true and vivid role in proving the case. However, the expression of human beings is subjective and affected by various factors, which may lead to misrepresentation. If it cannot be judged correctly, it will easily lead to the false identification of the facts of the case and thus impair the judicial justice. Therefore, it is a crucial task for judges to correctly evaluate and judge the proof power of criminal verbal evidence, which is of great significance to the accurate identification of the facts of the case. Influenced by the viewpoint of "concrete problem analysis" and "seeking truth from facts" in Marxist philosophical theory, our judicial practice has long insisted that the examination and judgment of evidence must be combined with the concrete case. However, with the deepening of the judicial reform, the judicial practice of our country is more and more inclined to make some concrete criteria to judge the power of proof of evidence. To regulate the authentication of judges. However, some scholars in the field of evidentiary law do not think this is the correct practice, they have made a fierce attack on the rules of judgment on the power of proof promulgated by the Supreme people's Court in the judicial interpretation of evidence, and at the same time, They strongly advocated the application of the "free evidence system" in the civil law system in our country's criminal trial, and further believed that in order to accurately judge the power of proof law, judges must establish a series of evidentiary rules aimed at restricting the ability of evidence. Raise the "entry threshold" of evidence to ensure the correctness of the judgment. Based on this background, this paper studies the judgment of evidence proof from the perspective of criminal evidence. Firstly, this paper systematically expounds the basic theory of evidence proof. Clarify the boundary between the force of proof and other concepts of evidence law, analyze and expound the basic elements of the act of judging the force of proof, in order to form a basic understanding of the power of proof and its judgment; secondly, This paper analyzes and summarizes the general standards for judging the power of proof of criminal speech evidence based on the understanding of the evidence of criminal words in the theory of evidence law and some practical experience in the trial, and finally, on the basis of these standards, Some concrete rules are created to judge the evidential power of criminal words, so that the judge's judgment on the evidentiary power can be carried out under the guidance of the rules. This paper holds that, whether it is the general criterion to be followed in trying to find the evidentiary power to judge the evidence, or the operational criterion for determining the evidentiary power of the judging evidence in the form of law, The most important thing is that the theoretical circle of evidence law in our country must change its research thinking. On the one hand, it must tear down the empty banner of "concrete analysis of concrete problems", and admit the existence of common laws in the power of judging evidence proof; on the other hand, On the basis of advocating "free heart syndrome", it is necessary to realize its inadequacies and not to make "free heart syndrome" absolute, thus turning it into "concrete problem analysis" of another mode. In judging the proof of evidence, we should stick to the combination of rules and discretion in order to accurately identify the facts of the case.
【學(xué)位授予單位】：遼寧大學(xué)
【學(xué)位級(jí)別】：碩士
【學(xué)位授予年份】：2014
【分類號(hào)】：D925.23

【參考文獻(xiàn)】

相關(guān)期刊論文 前10條

1 李訓(xùn)虎;;美國證據(jù)法中的證明力規(guī)則[J];比較法研究;2010年04期

2 張中;石美森;;論科學(xué)證據(jù)的證明力[J];證據(jù)科學(xué);2012年01期

3 顧永忠;;從定罪的“證明標(biāo)準(zhǔn)”到定罪量刑的“證據(jù)標(biāo)準(zhǔn)”——新《刑事訴訟法》對(duì)定罪證明標(biāo)準(zhǔn)的豐富與發(fā)展[J];證據(jù)科學(xué);2012年02期

4 陳瑞華;;論證據(jù)相互印證規(guī)則[J];法商研究;2012年01期

5 何家弘;;證據(jù)的審查與認(rèn)定原理論綱[J];法學(xué)家;2008年03期

6 徐陽;張溶開;張宛初;;證明力規(guī)則的效力分析——《關(guān)于辦理死刑案件審查判斷證據(jù)若干問題的規(guī)定》文本的解讀[J];東北大學(xué)學(xué)報(bào)(社會(huì)科學(xué)版);2013年03期

7 陳瑞華;;以限制證據(jù)證明力為核心的新法定證據(jù)主義[J];法學(xué)研究;2012年06期

8 王澤宇;董亞紅;;論刑事訴訟補(bǔ)強(qiáng)證據(jù)規(guī)則的完善[J];黑龍江省政法管理干部學(xué)院學(xué)報(bào);2013年02期

9 張斌;;證據(jù)概念的學(xué)科分析——法學(xué)、哲學(xué)、科學(xué)的視角[J];四川大學(xué)學(xué)報(bào)(哲學(xué)社會(huì)科學(xué)版);2013年01期

10 李月婷;;被害人陳述證明力的判斷[J];市場(chǎng)周刊(理論研究);2013年06期

本文編號(hào)：2043307