【摘要】：我國反腐敗斗爭(zhēng)由黨委、紀(jì)檢監(jiān)察部門、檢察機(jī)關(guān)三方聯(lián)動(dòng)協(xié)作,在不同范圍、不同層面上進(jìn)行反腐敗斗爭(zhēng)。司法實(shí)踐中,由于黨員與國家工作人員在主體范圍內(nèi)高度重疊,大量貪污賄賂案件須經(jīng)紀(jì)檢監(jiān)察部門違紀(jì)審理后,其中涉嫌犯罪的,再移送至司法機(jī)關(guān)。因而,紀(jì)檢監(jiān)察證據(jù)能否轉(zhuǎn)化為刑事司法證據(jù)、如何轉(zhuǎn)化為刑事證據(jù)成為紀(jì)檢監(jiān)察機(jī)關(guān)與檢察機(jī)關(guān)銜接的核心環(huán)節(jié)。對(duì)于刑事訴訟中紀(jì)檢監(jiān)察證據(jù)的轉(zhuǎn)化,我國現(xiàn)行刑事訴訟法中并無明確規(guī)定,實(shí)踐中言詞證據(jù)的轉(zhuǎn)化方式多為重復(fù)取證和補(bǔ)足手續(xù),實(shí)物證據(jù)則多通過辦理提取手續(xù)轉(zhuǎn)化為刑事司法證據(jù)�？傮w看來,目前紀(jì)檢監(jiān)察證據(jù)的轉(zhuǎn)化存在規(guī)范不夠細(xì)化、可操作性不強(qiáng),各地情況各異,易受主客觀因素影響等問題。證據(jù)轉(zhuǎn)化法律規(guī)范的缺失、紀(jì)檢監(jiān)察證據(jù)與刑事證據(jù)收集主體、收集程序、收集手段方面存異,成為阻礙紀(jì)檢監(jiān)察證據(jù)直接進(jìn)入刑事訴訟證據(jù)的制約性因素。紀(jì)檢監(jiān)察證據(jù)轉(zhuǎn)化具有其現(xiàn)實(shí)必要性,“兩規(guī)”、“兩指”作為特殊的紀(jì)檢調(diào)查措施,能夠快速從時(shí)間、空間上控制涉案對(duì)象,把控信息溝通渠道、排除當(dāng)事人串供,因而具有現(xiàn)實(shí)必然性和必要性,提高案件偵查效率及日益嚴(yán)峻的反腐敗斗爭(zhēng)要求紀(jì)檢監(jiān)察機(jī)關(guān)發(fā)揮其突出作用。同時(shí),紀(jì)檢監(jiān)察證據(jù)滿足真實(shí)性、關(guān)聯(lián)性的要求,具有證據(jù)力,且與刑事證據(jù)之間存在諸多共通點(diǎn),這為紀(jì)檢監(jiān)察證據(jù)轉(zhuǎn)化提供了前提條件及操作可行性。依法治國和從嚴(yán)治黨視域下,筆者認(rèn)為,更為切實(shí)的是,通過程序化設(shè)計(jì)確保紀(jì)檢監(jiān)察證據(jù)轉(zhuǎn)化規(guī)范行使,即在紀(jì)檢工作中,構(gòu)建紀(jì)檢監(jiān)察證據(jù)轉(zhuǎn)化的具體操作路徑,以全面轉(zhuǎn)化規(guī)則及最佳證據(jù)規(guī)則為原則,明確證據(jù)轉(zhuǎn)化范圍,將不同證據(jù)形式的紀(jì)檢監(jiān)察證據(jù)以法定方式、遵循規(guī)范化程序轉(zhuǎn)化為刑事司法證據(jù)。
[Abstract]:The anti-corruption struggle in China is coordinated by party committees, discipline inspection and supervision departments and procuratorial organs to fight against corruption in different areas and at different levels. In judicial practice, due to the high overlap between party members and state functionaries within the main body, a large number of corruption and bribery cases have to be tried by discipline inspection and supervision departments, and those suspected of crimes are transferred to the judicial organs. Therefore, whether the discipline inspection evidence can be transformed into criminal judicial evidence and how to turn it into criminal evidence has become the core link between discipline inspection supervision organ and procuratorial organ. As for the transformation of disciplinary inspection and supervision evidence in criminal proceedings, there is no clear stipulation in the present criminal procedure law of our country. In practice, the conversion of verbal evidence is mostly repeated evidence collection and supplementary procedure. Physical evidence is more through the extraction procedures into criminal judicial evidence. In general, there are some problems in the transformation of discipline inspection and supervision evidence, such as insufficient specification, weak maneuverability, different local situations and easy to be influenced by subjective and objective factors. The lack of legal norms for the transformation of evidence, the existence of differences between discipline inspection evidence and criminal evidence collection subject, collection procedure and collection means are the restrictive factors that prevent discipline inspection and supervision evidence from directly entering the evidence of criminal proceedings. The transformation of disciplinary inspection and supervision evidence has its practical necessity. As a special disciplinary inspection and investigation measure, "two rules" and "two fingers" can quickly control the objects involved in the case in time and space, communicate the control information channels, and exclude the parties concerned from cross-supplying. Therefore, it is necessary and necessary to improve the efficiency of investigation and the increasingly austere struggle against corruption, which requires the discipline inspection and supervision organs to play their prominent role. At the same time, discipline inspection and supervision evidence meets the requirements of authenticity, relevance, evidence power, and there are many common points with criminal evidence, which provides a prerequisite and operational feasibility for discipline inspection and supervision evidence conversion. From the perspective of governing the country according to law and administering the Party strictly, the author believes that it is more practical to ensure the implementation of the standard of the transformation of discipline inspection and supervision evidence through procedural design, that is, to construct the concrete operation path of the transformation of discipline inspection and supervision evidence in discipline inspection work. Based on the principle of comprehensive transformation rules and best evidence rules, the scope of evidence transformation is clarified, and the discipline inspection and supervision evidence of different forms of evidence is transformed into criminal judicial evidence in accordance with the standardized procedure.
【學(xué)位授予單位】：吉林大學(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 馬德鴻;略論法官庭外證據(jù)調(diào)查權(quán)[J];甘肅政法成人教育學(xué)院學(xué)報(bào);2001年03期

2 裴國智;試析法學(xué)證據(jù)[J];武漢公安干部學(xué)院學(xué)報(bào);2005年03期

3 王晶,張弘;從功能視角看證據(jù)的屬性[J];人民檢察;2005年21期

4 孫曉紅;;對(duì)證據(jù)調(diào)查變革的認(rèn)識(shí)[J];河南公安高等專科學(xué)校學(xué)報(bào);2007年04期

5 李長(zhǎng)城;;論刑事二審的證據(jù)調(diào)查[J];法學(xué)論壇;2011年04期

6 黃園;;對(duì)證據(jù)概念及特征的再認(rèn)識(shí)[J];商業(yè)文化(下半月);2011年12期

7 何家弘;;關(guān)于創(chuàng)建“證據(jù)調(diào)查學(xué)”的構(gòu)想[J];法學(xué)家;1996年06期

8 何家弘;證據(jù)調(diào)查方法探源(續(xù))[J];中央檢察官管理學(xué)院學(xué)報(bào);1997年02期

9 王若陽;析證據(jù)調(diào)查中常見的錯(cuò)誤[J];北京警院學(xué)報(bào);1997年01期

10 蘇玉華,楊善良;庭審中證據(jù)變動(dòng)問題探討[J];中國刑事法雜志;1998年06期

相關(guān)重要報(bào)紙文章 前10條

1 姚勇;建立證據(jù)調(diào)查令制度初探[N];江蘇經(jīng)濟(jì)報(bào);2003年

2 程雷;用制度保障采納無罪與罪輕證據(jù)[N];法制日?qǐng)?bào);2005年

3 山東省聊城市中級(jí)人民法院 鄭萬宏　李玉萍 關(guān)淼;專門調(diào)查體現(xiàn)審判職責(zé)[N];人民法院報(bào);2009年

4 中國青年政治學(xué)院法律系副主任 孫遠(yuǎn);從薄熙來案看證據(jù)問題[N];檢察日?qǐng)?bào);2013年

5 張吉喜;德國刑事訴訟中的證據(jù)禁止[N];人民法院報(bào);2005年

6 陳建平;安寧人依靠證據(jù)“打官司”[N];云南日?qǐng)?bào);2003年

7 齊樹潔;證據(jù)制度的改革任重而道遠(yuǎn)[N];人民法院報(bào);2003年

8 鄭萬宏　李玉萍 關(guān)淼;從司法鑒定到證據(jù)調(diào)查[N];人民法院報(bào);2009年

9 武漢大學(xué)法學(xué)院教授、博士生導(dǎo)師 江國華;通過證據(jù)法則的司法人權(quán)保障[N];人民法院報(bào);2011年

10 崔欣;我國民事訴訟中建立調(diào)查令制度之設(shè)想[N];江蘇法制報(bào);2006年

相關(guān)博士學(xué)位論文 前4條

1 康丹;南海島礁主權(quán)歸屬證據(jù)研究初論[D];武漢大學(xué);2013年

2 陳驚天;法官證據(jù)評(píng)判研究[D];中國政法大學(xué);2009年

3 孫義剛;證據(jù)契約研究[D];重慶大學(xué);2008年

4 金玄默;論證據(jù)裁判主義[D];中國政法大學(xué);2008年

相關(guān)碩士學(xué)位論文 前10條

1 黃穎婷;論刑事訴訟中的“情況說明”[D];西南大學(xué);2015年

2 王巖;論啟動(dòng)刑事再審之新證據(jù)[D];中國青年政治學(xué)院;2014年

3 陳i吪，

本文編號(hào)：2123635