刑事訴訟證明標(biāo)準(zhǔn)失靈及其矯治
發(fā)布時間：2018-08-05 15:00
【摘要】：整個刑事訴訟，實(shí)際上就是控方收集證據(jù)、運(yùn)用證據(jù)證明犯罪，辯方根據(jù)證明標(biāo)準(zhǔn)的要求對指控進(jìn)行反駁，裁判者根據(jù)證明標(biāo)準(zhǔn)認(rèn)定案件事實(shí)、判定被追訴人刑事責(zé)任的過程。在這個過程中，證明標(biāo)準(zhǔn)對訴訟各方尤其是擁有公權(quán)力的各方的證據(jù)收集、審查判斷、綜合運(yùn)用起著至關(guān)重要的指引作用。一旦證明標(biāo)準(zhǔn)喪失對偵查機(jī)關(guān)應(yīng)有的拘束力，取證就無法符合客觀、全面、合法的要求，控方就無法完成證明責(zé)任，滿足證明標(biāo)準(zhǔn)的要求。如果證明標(biāo)準(zhǔn)喪失對事實(shí)認(rèn)定者的拘束力，事實(shí)認(rèn)定活動就會像脫韁的野馬，失去羈絆，定罪量刑的公正性就喪失了事實(shí)基礎(chǔ)。刑事訴訟證明標(biāo)準(zhǔn)失靈，既不利于打擊犯罪，也不利于保障人權(quán)。研究刑事證明標(biāo)準(zhǔn)對偵查、審查逮捕、審查起訴、審判活動的應(yīng)有作用（即刑事證明標(biāo)準(zhǔn)的拘束力），揭示刑事證明標(biāo)準(zhǔn)沒有發(fā)揮對偵查、審查逮捕、審查起訴、審判應(yīng)有的拘束力（即證明標(biāo)準(zhǔn)失靈）的表現(xiàn)，分析其原因，有利于矯治刑事證明標(biāo)準(zhǔn)失靈，最終找到讓證明標(biāo)準(zhǔn)發(fā)揮其拘束力的辦法，從而保證事實(shí)認(rèn)定的正確性，達(dá)到打擊犯罪與保障人權(quán)并重的目的。 本文除引言外，正文共分為四個部分，約四萬余字。 第一部分研究刑事證明標(biāo)準(zhǔn)拘束力的概念、實(shí)現(xiàn)依據(jù)和發(fā)揮前提。所謂刑事證明標(biāo)準(zhǔn)的拘束力，是指刑事訴訟證明標(biāo)準(zhǔn)對各訴訟主體的訴訟行為所應(yīng)有的約束作用，其核心是定罪量刑的證明標(biāo)準(zhǔn)對偵查、起訴、審判所應(yīng)有的約束作用。這種約束作用的前提是：偵查機(jī)關(guān)應(yīng)當(dāng)按照證明標(biāo)準(zhǔn)的要求客觀、全面、合法地收集證據(jù)，移送審查起訴，檢察機(jī)關(guān)應(yīng)當(dāng)按照證明標(biāo)準(zhǔn)的要求審查提起公訴，法院按照證明標(biāo)準(zhǔn)的要求作出裁判。刑事證明標(biāo)準(zhǔn)的拘束力實(shí)現(xiàn)拘束力的依據(jù)在于法律對各機(jī)關(guān)在刑事訴訟中的職能分配，通過訴訟結(jié)構(gòu)延伸至訴訟各個階段。從具體的事實(shí)認(rèn)定過程中看，證明標(biāo)準(zhǔn)拘束力的產(chǎn)生一方面在于保持事實(shí)認(rèn)定者的理性狀態(tài)，另一方面在于保證其心證的合理性。無論法官還是檢察官，都必須摒棄外界因素的影響，以理性的思維，通過正確的心證方式實(shí)現(xiàn)對案件事實(shí)的認(rèn)定。 第二部分揭示刑事司法實(shí)踐中的證明標(biāo)準(zhǔn)失靈的表現(xiàn)。刑事證明標(biāo)準(zhǔn)失靈，是指它對偵查機(jī)關(guān)、檢察機(jī)關(guān)、審判機(jī)關(guān)的訴訟行為沒有發(fā)揮應(yīng)有的拘束力。它具體表現(xiàn)為：首先，就偵查機(jī)關(guān)（部門）而言，這表現(xiàn)為偵查機(jī)關(guān)（部門）不按照檢察機(jī)關(guān)完成證明責(zé)任的要求客觀、全面、合法地收集證據(jù)，，偏重對定罪證據(jù)的收集，忽略對量刑證據(jù)的收集，證據(jù)的全面性不足；對證據(jù)的合法性重視不夠。其次，就檢察機(jī)關(guān)而言，刑事證明標(biāo)準(zhǔn)失靈表現(xiàn)為檢察機(jī)關(guān)在提起公訴時，對證據(jù)的合法性重視不足，不敢排除非法證據(jù)；對證據(jù)的全面性重視不足，偏重對定罪事實(shí)的證明，忽略對量刑事實(shí)的證明。最后，就審判機(jī)關(guān)而言，刑事證明標(biāo)準(zhǔn)失靈表現(xiàn)為審判機(jī)關(guān)對不符合定罪證明標(biāo)準(zhǔn)的案件，不是按照疑罪從無的原則進(jìn)行處理，而是疑罪從有、從掛。 第三部分剖析刑事證明標(biāo)準(zhǔn)失靈的原因。刑事證明標(biāo)準(zhǔn)失靈的原因是多方面的。首先，治罪型的訴訟模式致使刑事訴訟偏重懲罰犯罪，注重有罪事實(shí)忽略了無罪事實(shí)。其次，我國的刑事訴訟程序呈現(xiàn)“流水線”式的縱向結(jié)構(gòu)，各個環(huán)節(jié)之間聯(lián)系不緊密，需要偵查案卷對程序之間進(jìn)行維系，因而形成了“偵查中心主義”的訴訟結(jié)構(gòu)。再次，審前程序中的訴訟活動為偵查機(jī)關(guān)主導(dǎo)，檢察機(jī)關(guān)對其監(jiān)督十分有限，偵查活動無法有效地為公訴提供充分、合理的依據(jù)，“配合制約”的檢警關(guān)系呈現(xiàn)出“配合大于制約”的現(xiàn)象。最后，法院的訴訟決策機(jī)制嚴(yán)重行政化，“親歷”的承辦法官往往不能作出最后的事實(shí)認(rèn)定，而要遵循領(lǐng)導(dǎo)的建議。整個刑事司法體系是以打擊犯罪為主的嚴(yán)密結(jié)構(gòu)，正當(dāng)程序觀念缺失。 第四部分指出刑事證明標(biāo)準(zhǔn)實(shí)現(xiàn)拘束力的路徑。要使證明標(biāo)準(zhǔn)發(fā)揮拘束力，首先，必須破除現(xiàn)有的治罪模式，改變懲罰犯罪的刑事訴訟目的，將實(shí)體真實(shí)與正當(dāng)程序并重，為了提起對消極事實(shí)真實(shí)的注意，應(yīng)當(dāng)注重以正當(dāng)程序?qū)崿F(xiàn)之。其次，應(yīng)當(dāng)調(diào)整刑事訴訟的縱向結(jié)構(gòu)，加強(qiáng)審判階段的糾錯功能，以消極實(shí)體真實(shí)的發(fā)現(xiàn)作為法院的職責(zé)，并在此基礎(chǔ)上完善橫向的三方訴訟結(jié)構(gòu)。再次，應(yīng)當(dāng)理順檢警關(guān)系，審前程序要以公訴權(quán)為中心，建立偵訴協(xié)作的檢警關(guān)系，并注重檢察機(jī)關(guān)對偵查機(jī)關(guān)的單向制約。最后，改進(jìn)訴訟決策機(jī)制，保證法院對外的獨(dú)立地位，法院內(nèi)部也要還權(quán)給合議庭，減少行政化的不當(dāng)干預(yù)，建立以承辦法官為中心的訴訟決策模式。
[Abstract]:In fact, the whole criminal procedure is the procedure that the prosecution collects evidence, uses evidence to prove the crime, the argument refutes the accusation according to the requirements of the standard of proof, and the referee determines the fact of the case according to the standard of proof and determines the criminal responsibility of the accused. In this process, the standard of proof is especially to the parties to the lawsuit, especially the parties with public power. The evidence collection, examination and judgment and comprehensive use play a vital guiding role. Once the standard is proved to be lost to the investigative authorities, it is impossible to meet the objective, comprehensive and legal requirements. The prosecution will not be able to fulfill the burden of proof and meet the requirements of the standard of proof. It will be like the runaway wild horse, lose the fetter, and the impartiality of conviction and sentencing will lose the foundation of the fact. The failure of the standard of proof of criminal procedure is not conducive to the fight against crime and the protection of human rights. The criminal proof standard does not display the performance of the investigation, the examination and arrest, the examination and prosecution, the trial and the trial, that is, the failure of the standard of proof, which is beneficial to the correction of the failure of the criminal proof standard, and finally finds the way to let the standard of proof play its binding force so as to ensure the correctness of the fact identification. The purpose of combating crime and guaranteeing human rights is equal.
In addition to the preface, the text is divided into four parts, about 40000 words.
The first part is to study the concept of criminal proof standard binding force, to realize the basis and to give full play to the premise. The binding force of the so-called criminal proof standard refers to the binding effect of the criminal procedure proof standard on the action of the various litigation subjects, and the core is the binding effect of the standard of proof of conviction and sentencing on the investigation, prosecution and trial. The premise of the restraining effect is that the investigative organ should objectively, comprehensively and legitimately collect the evidence in accordance with the requirements of the standard of proof. The procuratorial organ should review and prosecute the prosecution in accordance with the requirements of the standard of proof. The court shall make a referee according to the requirements of the standard of proof. The distribution of the functions of various organs in the criminal proceedings is extended to every stage of the lawsuit by the law. In the process of identifying the specific facts, it is proved that the generation of the standard binding force lies in maintaining the rational state of the factual identifier, on the other hand, to ensure the rationality of its evidence. We must abandon the influence of external factors, and realize the identification of the facts of a case through rational thinking and correct evidence.
The second part reveals the failure of the standard of proof in criminal judicial practice. The failure of the criminal proof standard means that it does not exert due restraint on the action of the investigative organs, the procuratorial organs and the judicial organs. It is manifested as the investigation organ (Department), which is not according to the procuratorial machine. The requirements for the completion of the burden of proof are objective, comprehensive and legitimate to collect evidence, pay more attention to the collection of evidence for convictions, ignore the collection of sentencing evidence, lack of comprehensiveness of evidence, and not pay enough attention to the legitimacy of the evidence. Secondly, in the case of procuratorial organs, the criminal proof standard is shown as the combination of the procuratorial organs when prosecuting the public prosecution. The legal importance is insufficient, and the illegal evidence is not ruled out; the comprehensive attention to the evidence is insufficient, the proof of the conviction of the conviction and the proof of the fact of the sentencing are overlooked. Finally, the failure of the criminal proof standard is shown by the judicial organs as the cases of the judicial organs that are not in conformity with the standard of conviction. The reason is to doubt the crime from the hang.
The third part analyzes the reasons for the failure of the criminal proof standard. The reasons for the failure of the standard of criminal proof are many aspects. First, the mode of the crime based litigation causes the criminal procedure to punish the crime, and pay attention to the fact that the crime is ignored. Secondly, the criminal procedure in our country presents a "pipeline" longitudinal structure and every link. If the connection is not close, it needs the investigation files to maintain the procedure between the procedures, thus forming the litigation structure of "investigation centralism". Again, the litigation activities in the pre trial procedure are dominated by the investigation organs, the procuratorial organs are very limited in supervision, and the investigation activities can not effectively provide the public prosecution with sufficient and reasonable basis, and "cooperate with the restriction". In the end, the judicial decision mechanism of the court is seriously administrative, and the "experienced" judges are often unable to make the final facts, but should follow the suggestions of the leadership. The whole criminal justice system is a strict structure against the crime as the main main and the lack of due process concept.
The fourth part points out the path of the criminal proof standard to realize the binding force. In order to make the standard of proof play a binding force, first of all, we must break the existing mode of crime, change the purpose of the criminal procedure of the punishment, and attach equal importance to the real and the due process. In order to bring the real attention to the negative facts, we should pay attention to the realization of the due process. Secondly, it should be realized. We should adjust the longitudinal structure of the criminal procedure, strengthen the error correction function of the trial stage, take the real discovery of the negative entity as the duty of the court, and improve the horizontal three party litigation structure on this basis. Again, we should straighten out the relationship between the prosecutor and the police, the pre trial procedure should focus on the right of public prosecution, establish the relationship between the prosecution and the police, and pay attention to the procuratorial work. In the end, we should improve the decision-making mechanism of the litigation and ensure the independence of the court to ensure the independence of the court. The court should also give the right to the collegial panel to reduce the improper intervention of the administration and establish a lawsuit decision model which takes the judges as the center.
【學(xué)位授予單位】：西南政法大學(xué)
【學(xué)位級別】：碩士
【學(xué)位授予年份】：2014
【分類號】：D925.2
[Abstract]:In fact, the whole criminal procedure is the procedure that the prosecution collects evidence, uses evidence to prove the crime, the argument refutes the accusation according to the requirements of the standard of proof, and the referee determines the fact of the case according to the standard of proof and determines the criminal responsibility of the accused. In this process, the standard of proof is especially to the parties to the lawsuit, especially the parties with public power. The evidence collection, examination and judgment and comprehensive use play a vital guiding role. Once the standard is proved to be lost to the investigative authorities, it is impossible to meet the objective, comprehensive and legal requirements. The prosecution will not be able to fulfill the burden of proof and meet the requirements of the standard of proof. It will be like the runaway wild horse, lose the fetter, and the impartiality of conviction and sentencing will lose the foundation of the fact. The failure of the standard of proof of criminal procedure is not conducive to the fight against crime and the protection of human rights. The criminal proof standard does not display the performance of the investigation, the examination and arrest, the examination and prosecution, the trial and the trial, that is, the failure of the standard of proof, which is beneficial to the correction of the failure of the criminal proof standard, and finally finds the way to let the standard of proof play its binding force so as to ensure the correctness of the fact identification. The purpose of combating crime and guaranteeing human rights is equal.
In addition to the preface, the text is divided into four parts, about 40000 words.
The first part is to study the concept of criminal proof standard binding force, to realize the basis and to give full play to the premise. The binding force of the so-called criminal proof standard refers to the binding effect of the criminal procedure proof standard on the action of the various litigation subjects, and the core is the binding effect of the standard of proof of conviction and sentencing on the investigation, prosecution and trial. The premise of the restraining effect is that the investigative organ should objectively, comprehensively and legitimately collect the evidence in accordance with the requirements of the standard of proof. The procuratorial organ should review and prosecute the prosecution in accordance with the requirements of the standard of proof. The court shall make a referee according to the requirements of the standard of proof. The distribution of the functions of various organs in the criminal proceedings is extended to every stage of the lawsuit by the law. In the process of identifying the specific facts, it is proved that the generation of the standard binding force lies in maintaining the rational state of the factual identifier, on the other hand, to ensure the rationality of its evidence. We must abandon the influence of external factors, and realize the identification of the facts of a case through rational thinking and correct evidence.
The second part reveals the failure of the standard of proof in criminal judicial practice. The failure of the criminal proof standard means that it does not exert due restraint on the action of the investigative organs, the procuratorial organs and the judicial organs. It is manifested as the investigation organ (Department), which is not according to the procuratorial machine. The requirements for the completion of the burden of proof are objective, comprehensive and legitimate to collect evidence, pay more attention to the collection of evidence for convictions, ignore the collection of sentencing evidence, lack of comprehensiveness of evidence, and not pay enough attention to the legitimacy of the evidence. Secondly, in the case of procuratorial organs, the criminal proof standard is shown as the combination of the procuratorial organs when prosecuting the public prosecution. The legal importance is insufficient, and the illegal evidence is not ruled out; the comprehensive attention to the evidence is insufficient, the proof of the conviction of the conviction and the proof of the fact of the sentencing are overlooked. Finally, the failure of the criminal proof standard is shown by the judicial organs as the cases of the judicial organs that are not in conformity with the standard of conviction. The reason is to doubt the crime from the hang.
The third part analyzes the reasons for the failure of the criminal proof standard. The reasons for the failure of the standard of criminal proof are many aspects. First, the mode of the crime based litigation causes the criminal procedure to punish the crime, and pay attention to the fact that the crime is ignored. Secondly, the criminal procedure in our country presents a "pipeline" longitudinal structure and every link. If the connection is not close, it needs the investigation files to maintain the procedure between the procedures, thus forming the litigation structure of "investigation centralism". Again, the litigation activities in the pre trial procedure are dominated by the investigation organs, the procuratorial organs are very limited in supervision, and the investigation activities can not effectively provide the public prosecution with sufficient and reasonable basis, and "cooperate with the restriction". In the end, the judicial decision mechanism of the court is seriously administrative, and the "experienced" judges are often unable to make the final facts, but should follow the suggestions of the leadership. The whole criminal justice system is a strict structure against the crime as the main main and the lack of due process concept.
The fourth part points out the path of the criminal proof standard to realize the binding force. In order to make the standard of proof play a binding force, first of all, we must break the existing mode of crime, change the purpose of the criminal procedure of the punishment, and attach equal importance to the real and the due process. In order to bring the real attention to the negative facts, we should pay attention to the realization of the due process. Secondly, it should be realized. We should adjust the longitudinal structure of the criminal procedure, strengthen the error correction function of the trial stage, take the real discovery of the negative entity as the duty of the court, and improve the horizontal three party litigation structure on this basis. Again, we should straighten out the relationship between the prosecutor and the police, the pre trial procedure should focus on the right of public prosecution, establish the relationship between the prosecution and the police, and pay attention to the procuratorial work. In the end, we should improve the decision-making mechanism of the litigation and ensure the independence of the court to ensure the independence of the court. The court should also give the right to the collegial panel to reduce the improper intervention of the administration and establish a lawsuit decision model which takes the judges as the center.
【學(xué)位授予單位】：西南政法大學(xué)
【學(xué)位級別】：碩士
【學(xué)位授予年份】：2014
【分類號】：D925.2
【參考文獻(xiàn)】
相關(guān)期刊論文 前10條
1 左衛(wèi)民;周洪波;;證明標(biāo)準(zhǔn)與刑事政策[J];比較法研究;2006年02期
2 馬靜華;彭美;;非法審訊:一個實(shí)證角度的研究——以S省為主要樣板的分析[J];福建公安高等專科學(xué)校學(xué)報;2006年04期
3 劉方權(quán);;偵查中的訊問:整體功能與階段差異——基于實(shí)證的研究[J];福建警察學(xué)院學(xué)報;2008年01期
4 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
5 萬毅,劉沛
本文編號：2166144
本文鏈接：http://sikaile.net/falvlunwen/susongfa/2166144.html
最近更新
教材專著
