【摘要】：司法的對象是糾紛或社會矛盾,將糾紛或社會矛盾訴諸司法需要將糾紛或社會矛盾的真實(shí)情況呈現(xiàn)于司法機(jī)關(guān)面前,因此,事實(shí)呈現(xiàn)是糾紛主體首先面臨并需首先解決的問題,也是司法機(jī)關(guān)了解案件的基礎(chǔ)與一切裁判行為的前提條件。事實(shí)呈現(xiàn)是將已經(jīng)消逝的,只在歷史上的現(xiàn)實(shí)通過一定的方式與載體予以再現(xiàn)或者反映的行為。在司法范疇內(nèi),事實(shí)呈現(xiàn)的方式方法稱之為司法證明。司法證明,概言之,就是以司法的方法解決司法上的事實(shí)證明問題。鑒于糾紛或社會矛盾的事實(shí)是司法活動的基礎(chǔ),是先于糾紛主體權(quán)利義務(wù)的原因條件,而司法證明是承載事實(shí)的根本性載體,因此司法證明是司法活動的基礎(chǔ)因素。司法證明所要解決問題的重要性與復(fù)雜性決定了司法證明對司法裁判具有決定性作用。證據(jù)裁判為司法裁判毋庸置疑的奠基性原則,而司法證明是以證據(jù)裁判作為起點(diǎn)與終點(diǎn),并貫穿始終的證明體系。本文僅以刑事裁判范疇之內(nèi)的司法證明體系作為分析研究的對象,通過對證明體系中各證明要素的解析,嘗試對證明體系的構(gòu)建提供一種建設(shè)性學(xué)術(shù)方案,為司法證明的理論與實(shí)踐提供行之有效的實(shí)用指引。實(shí)踐是檢驗(yàn)理論的試金石。司法證明是一門實(shí)實(shí)在在的應(yīng)用學(xué)問,甚至稱之為科學(xué)也是適當(dāng)?shù)?因?yàn)榭茖W(xué)的本質(zhì)在于方法,司法證據(jù)體系本身充分貫通了邏輯的辯證,更是以各種方法論作為指導(dǎo)司法活動的行為準(zhǔn)則,因此稱之為科學(xué)并不為過。本文的基本結(jié)構(gòu)分為四個部分:第一部分為總論,主要對刑事裁判所面對的客觀困境以及刑事裁判證明體系解構(gòu)的重要性、急迫性予以探討說明,并由此引出本文的主體部分,即是對證明體系采取實(shí)體與程序兩分法的證明關(guān)系與證明程序。第二部分是證明關(guān)系,該部分主要借鑒法理學(xué)之中法律關(guān)系的理論范式,將證明關(guān)系劃分為主體、客體與內(nèi)容三大部分,并且在證明客體的內(nèi)容之中提出一項(xiàng)創(chuàng)新性的觀點(diǎn),即是在我國證據(jù)法長期通行的證據(jù)能力三性(真實(shí)性、合法性、關(guān)聯(lián)性)的基礎(chǔ)上,提出了證明能力的三性:完整性(全面性)、邏輯性(科學(xué)性)、緊密性(距離性),這為我國證據(jù)理論與實(shí)踐長期偏重證據(jù)能力而忽視證明能力提出了一種糾偏的思維與應(yīng)用方案,其現(xiàn)實(shí)價值是為完善證據(jù)的證明力,增強(qiáng)證據(jù)證明力提供思維的引導(dǎo)。此外,第二部分內(nèi)容對證據(jù)的種類也提出了創(chuàng)新性的理論,就是將證據(jù)分為人證、物證與具備人證與物證因素的“合證”作為證據(jù)的基本邏輯分類,該種分類兼顧了證據(jù)種類在學(xué)術(shù)理論之間的契合、理論與實(shí)踐之間的契合。第三部分是證明程序,該部分通過司法證明的因果邏輯,時間順序?qū)φ麄€證明程序予以安排,對目前的證明程序有所修正。第四部分是結(jié)論,即是在總結(jié)全文的基礎(chǔ)上,提煉與升華本文的核心觀點(diǎn),將證明體系的理論深化作為推動司法活動發(fā)展的重要驅(qū)動力,旨在為司法理論與司法實(shí)踐提供一種可行的方法論。
[Abstract]:The object of justice is disputes or social contradictions. Applying disputes or social contradictions to justice requires presenting the real situation of disputes or social contradictions before the judicial organs. Therefore, presenting facts is the first problem that the subject of disputes faces and needs to be solved first. It is also the basis for the judicial organs to understand the case and the prerequisite for all adjudicative actions. The presentation of facts is the act of reappearing or reflecting the disappeared facts only through certain means and carriers in history. In the judicial category, the presentation of facts is called judicial proof. In short, judicial proof is to solve the problem of judicial proof of facts by judicial means. In view of disputes or social spears. The fact of the shield is the basis of judicial activities and the cause condition of the rights and obligations of the subjects prior to the disputes, and judicial proof is the fundamental carrier of the facts, so judicial proof is the basic factor of judicial activities. Judicial adjudication is undoubtedly the foundational principle of judicial adjudication, and judicial proof is based on evidence adjudication as the starting point and end point, and throughout the proof system. Practice is the litmus test of theory. Judicial proof is a real applied knowledge, and even it is appropriate to call it science, because the essence of science lies in methods, and the judicial evidence system itself is fully integrated. The basic structure of this article is divided into four parts: the first part is the general introduction, mainly on the objective dilemma faced by criminal adjudication and the importance of deconstruction of criminal adjudication proof system, urgency to be discussed. The second part is the relationship of proof. This part mainly refers to the theoretical paradigm of legal relationship in jurisprudence, divides the relationship of proof into three parts: subject, object and content, and proves the object. In the content, an innovative viewpoint is put forward, that is, on the basis of the three properties (authenticity, legality and relevance) of the evidence ability that have been prevalent in China's evidence law for a long time, the three properties of the proof ability are put forward: completeness (comprehensiveness), logicality (scientificity) and closeness (distance). This is the reason why the theory and Practice of evidence in China have long emphasized the evidence ability. Ignoring the ability of proof, this paper puts forward a thinking and application scheme of rectifying deviation, whose realistic value is to provide guidance for perfecting the proof power of evidence and enhancing the proof power of evidence. The third part is the proof procedure, which arranges the whole proof procedure through the causal logic of judicial proof and time sequence, and amends the present proof procedure. The part is the conclusion, that is, on the basis of summarizing the full text, to refine and sublimate the core point of this article, and to deepen the theory of the proof system as an important driving force to promote the development of judicial activities, aiming to provide a feasible methodology for judicial theory and judicial practice.
【學(xué)位授予單位】：深圳大學(xué)
【學(xué)位級別】：碩士
【學(xué)位授予年份】：2017
【分類號】：D925.2

【相似文獻(xiàn)】

相關(guān)期刊論文 前10條

1 彭海青;;刑事裁判共識引論[J];現(xiàn)代法學(xué);2011年01期

2 徐雯;刑事裁判中的財(cái)產(chǎn)部分如何移送執(zhí)行[J];人民司法;2000年12期

3 楊建廣;論生效刑事裁判糾錯系統(tǒng)的構(gòu)成[J];學(xué)術(shù)研究;2002年02期

4 _5雪妲;;中國的刑事裁判執(zhí)行監(jiān)督制度[J];中國法律;2005年03期

5 彭海青;刑事裁判權(quán)客體初論[J];社會科學(xué)家;2005年04期

6 陶建國;武丹;;日本刑事裁判中的裁判員制度[J];中國刑事法雜志;2005年04期

7 曹U，

本文編號：2239693