刑事訴訟中證據(jù)轉(zhuǎn)化規(guī)則研究
發(fā)布時間：2018-10-23 09:32
【摘要】：證據(jù)轉(zhuǎn)化規(guī)則的問題在我國理論界討論己久。據(jù)《刑事訴訟法》第52條第2款,行政機(jī)關(guān)依法收集的實物證據(jù)可以直接進(jìn)入刑事訴訟。在我國的司法實踐當(dāng)中,由于公安機(jī)關(guān)“兩權(quán)共享”機(jī)構(gòu)的存在,實物證據(jù)往往僅僅通過補(bǔ)齊手續(xù)等方式完成證據(jù)的轉(zhuǎn)化,而極少從證據(jù)能力方面予以審查,而言詞證據(jù)能否在刑事訴訟中使用仍眾說紛紜。由于行政執(zhí)法活動中收集的證據(jù)一般不具有回復(fù)性以及行政機(jī)關(guān)收集的實物證據(jù)與刑事偵查機(jī)關(guān)獲取的證據(jù)并無實質(zhì)上的差異,一些學(xué)者主張這些實物證據(jù)應(yīng)當(dāng)被允許直接在刑事訴訟中使用。但是刑事證據(jù)確立了諸如無罪推定原則、證據(jù)合法原則和直接言詞原則等諸多基本原則,其在證據(jù)的證據(jù)能力及證明力等方面具有更為嚴(yán)格的要求,如果僅僅因為行政機(jī)關(guān)收集證據(jù)的方式與偵查機(jī)關(guān)沒有實質(zhì)性的差異而允許行政執(zhí)法證據(jù)在較低程序保障條件下進(jìn)入刑事訴訟領(lǐng)域,對于被追訴人來說則具有極大的風(fēng)險可能實質(zhì)地降低其權(quán)利保障。從比較法的視角觀察,在刑事訴訟領(lǐng)域內(nèi)使用的行政執(zhí)法證據(jù)應(yīng)當(dāng)包括三種情形,即行政機(jī)關(guān)正當(dāng)執(zhí)法獲得的證據(jù)、行政機(jī)關(guān)“假借行政調(diào)查之名”獲得的證據(jù)、行政機(jī)關(guān)與偵查機(jī)關(guān)“共同調(diào)查”獲得的證據(jù)三種類型。在權(quán)利保障的維度,第一種類型,從程序保障的角度出發(fā),從取證的行為是否符合執(zhí)法目的、是否遵循法定程序以及是否屬于行政非法證據(jù)排除規(guī)則的適用范圍等方面來審查行政機(jī)關(guān)獲取的證據(jù)是否為正當(dāng)執(zhí)法獲取;在第二種類型下,為了明確劃定行政調(diào)查與刑事偵查的界限,應(yīng)確定惡意推定規(guī)則,同時綜合考量調(diào)查手段的緊急性、必要性,以及公共利益和個人利益的權(quán)衡,來區(qū)分行政調(diào)查與刑事偵查;在第三種類型下,應(yīng)當(dāng)著重審查“共同調(diào)查”中的主導(dǎo)機(jī)關(guān)、調(diào)查措施、調(diào)查目的等因素。而對于行政機(jī)關(guān)收集的言詞證據(jù),雖然《刑事訴訟法》第52條并未予明確規(guī)定,但是在司法實踐中,應(yīng)當(dāng)區(qū)分原則與例外,同時應(yīng)當(dāng)完善證據(jù)轉(zhuǎn)化的程序規(guī)定。故此,應(yīng)當(dāng)在立法上對《刑事訴訟法》第52條第2款規(guī)定以及相關(guān)的司法解釋,通過對不同類型的行政執(zhí)法證據(jù)進(jìn)行劃分,從而確立不同的審查規(guī)則;在書面言詞證據(jù)方面,應(yīng)當(dāng)摒棄那種完全贊成或者完全反對行政執(zhí)法活動獲取的書面言詞證據(jù)進(jìn)入刑事訴訟領(lǐng)域的觀點,在確立此種書面言詞證據(jù)不能直接作為定罪證據(jù)和不利于犯罪嫌疑人、被告人的量刑證據(jù)外,應(yīng)當(dāng)允許在例外情形下可以使用。
[Abstract]:The question of the rule of evidence conversion has been discussed for a long time in the theoretical circle of our country. According to article 52 (2) of the Code of Criminal procedure, the physical evidence collected by administrative organs according to law can be directly entered into criminal proceedings. In the judicial practice of our country, due to the existence of the public security organs'"two powers sharing" institutions, the physical evidence often completes the transformation of the evidence only through the completion of the formalities, and rarely reviews it from the aspect of the evidence capacity. But whether the verbal evidence can be used in the criminal proceedings is still controversial. Since the evidence collected in the administrative law enforcement activities is generally not recoverable and the physical evidence collected by the administrative organs is not materially different from the evidence obtained by the criminal investigation organs, Some scholars argue that such physical evidence should be allowed to be used directly in criminal proceedings. However, criminal evidence has established many basic principles, such as presumption of innocence principle, legal principle of evidence and principle of direct words, and so on. If administrative law enforcement evidence is allowed to enter the field of criminal proceedings under lower procedural safeguards simply because there is no material difference between the way the administrative organ collects evidence and the investigative organ, For the accused person, there is a great risk which may substantially reduce the protection of their rights. From the perspective of comparative law, the evidence of administrative law enforcement used in the field of criminal procedure should include three kinds of cases, namely, the evidence obtained by the administrative organ in the proper enforcement of the law, the evidence obtained by the administrative organ "under the guise of administrative investigation", and the evidence obtained by the administrative organ in the name of "administrative investigation". There are three types of evidence obtained by administrative organs and investigative organs. In the dimension of protection of rights, the first type, from the point of view of procedural protection, from the point of view of obtaining evidence, whether the act of obtaining evidence conforms to the purpose of law enforcement, To examine whether the evidence obtained by administrative organs is obtained by law enforcement in accordance with legal procedures and whether it is within the scope of application of the exclusion rules of administrative illegal evidence; under the second type, In order to clearly delineate the boundary between administrative investigation and criminal investigation, the rules of malicious presumption should be determined, and the urgency and necessity of investigation means, as well as the balance between public interest and individual interest, should be comprehensively considered to distinguish administrative investigation from criminal investigation. Under the third type, we should focus on the factors such as the leading agency, the measures and the purpose of the joint investigation. However, the article 52 of the Criminal procedure Law does not clearly stipulate the verbal evidence collected by the administrative organs, but in judicial practice, we should distinguish the principle from the exception, and perfect the procedural provisions for the conversion of evidence. Therefore, the provisions of article 52, paragraph 2, of the Code of Criminal procedure and the relevant judicial interpretation should be legislated to establish different examination rules by dividing different types of administrative law enforcement evidence; The view that written verbal evidence obtained by administrative law enforcement activities is wholly or wholly opposed to entering the field of criminal proceedings should be abandoned, and when it is established that such written verbal evidence cannot be directly used as conviction evidence and is not conducive to criminal suspects, In addition to the sentencing evidence of the defendant, it shall be allowed to be used under exceptional circumstances.
【學(xué)位授予單位】：遼寧大學(xué)
【學(xué)位級別】：碩士
【學(xué)位授予年份】：2017
【分類號】：D925.2
本文編號：2288824
[Abstract]:The question of the rule of evidence conversion has been discussed for a long time in the theoretical circle of our country. According to article 52 (2) of the Code of Criminal procedure, the physical evidence collected by administrative organs according to law can be directly entered into criminal proceedings. In the judicial practice of our country, due to the existence of the public security organs'"two powers sharing" institutions, the physical evidence often completes the transformation of the evidence only through the completion of the formalities, and rarely reviews it from the aspect of the evidence capacity. But whether the verbal evidence can be used in the criminal proceedings is still controversial. Since the evidence collected in the administrative law enforcement activities is generally not recoverable and the physical evidence collected by the administrative organs is not materially different from the evidence obtained by the criminal investigation organs, Some scholars argue that such physical evidence should be allowed to be used directly in criminal proceedings. However, criminal evidence has established many basic principles, such as presumption of innocence principle, legal principle of evidence and principle of direct words, and so on. If administrative law enforcement evidence is allowed to enter the field of criminal proceedings under lower procedural safeguards simply because there is no material difference between the way the administrative organ collects evidence and the investigative organ, For the accused person, there is a great risk which may substantially reduce the protection of their rights. From the perspective of comparative law, the evidence of administrative law enforcement used in the field of criminal procedure should include three kinds of cases, namely, the evidence obtained by the administrative organ in the proper enforcement of the law, the evidence obtained by the administrative organ "under the guise of administrative investigation", and the evidence obtained by the administrative organ in the name of "administrative investigation". There are three types of evidence obtained by administrative organs and investigative organs. In the dimension of protection of rights, the first type, from the point of view of procedural protection, from the point of view of obtaining evidence, whether the act of obtaining evidence conforms to the purpose of law enforcement, To examine whether the evidence obtained by administrative organs is obtained by law enforcement in accordance with legal procedures and whether it is within the scope of application of the exclusion rules of administrative illegal evidence; under the second type, In order to clearly delineate the boundary between administrative investigation and criminal investigation, the rules of malicious presumption should be determined, and the urgency and necessity of investigation means, as well as the balance between public interest and individual interest, should be comprehensively considered to distinguish administrative investigation from criminal investigation. Under the third type, we should focus on the factors such as the leading agency, the measures and the purpose of the joint investigation. However, the article 52 of the Criminal procedure Law does not clearly stipulate the verbal evidence collected by the administrative organs, but in judicial practice, we should distinguish the principle from the exception, and perfect the procedural provisions for the conversion of evidence. Therefore, the provisions of article 52, paragraph 2, of the Code of Criminal procedure and the relevant judicial interpretation should be legislated to establish different examination rules by dividing different types of administrative law enforcement evidence; The view that written verbal evidence obtained by administrative law enforcement activities is wholly or wholly opposed to entering the field of criminal proceedings should be abandoned, and when it is established that such written verbal evidence cannot be directly used as conviction evidence and is not conducive to criminal suspects, In addition to the sentencing evidence of the defendant, it shall be allowed to be used under exceptional circumstances.
【學(xué)位授予單位】：遼寧大學(xué)
【學(xué)位級別】：碩士
【學(xué)位授予年份】：2017
【分類號】：D925.2
【參考文獻(xiàn)】
相關(guān)期刊論文 前10條
1 馮俊偉;;行政執(zhí)法證據(jù)進(jìn)入刑事訴訟的范圍限定——以書面言詞證據(jù)為中心[J];理論學(xué)刊;2015年11期
2 陳剛;蔣勇;;公安機(jī)關(guān)“兩法銜接”中的證據(jù)轉(zhuǎn)化隱憂——以警察行政強(qiáng)制權(quán)為視角[J];中國人民公安大學(xué)學(xué)報(社會科學(xué)版);2014年03期
3 樊傳明;;自由證明原理與技術(shù)性證據(jù)規(guī)則——英美證據(jù)法的前提性假設(shè)和兩種功能解釋[J];環(huán)球法律評論;2014年02期
4 馮俊偉;;行政執(zhí)法證據(jù)進(jìn)入刑事訴訟的類型分析——基于比較法的視角[J];比較法研究;2014年02期
5 韓旭;;限制權(quán)利抑或擴(kuò)張權(quán)力——對新《刑事訴訟法》“兩高”司法解釋若干規(guī)定之質(zhì)疑[J];法學(xué)論壇;2014年01期
6 郝愛軍;殷憲龍;;行政機(jī)關(guān)收集證據(jù)在刑事訴訟中運(yùn)用的疑難問題解析[J];中國刑事法雜志;2013年09期
7 姜虹;;從證據(jù)能力視角審視行政證據(jù)向刑事證據(jù)轉(zhuǎn)化[J];北京警察學(xué)院學(xué)報;2013年04期
8 高通;;行政執(zhí)法與刑事司法銜接中的證據(jù)轉(zhuǎn)化——對《刑事訴訟法》(2012年)第52條第2款的分析[J];證據(jù)科學(xué);2012年06期
9 龍宗智;;進(jìn)步及其局限——由證據(jù)制度調(diào)整的觀察[J];政法論壇;2012年05期
10 黃世斌;;行政執(zhí)法與刑事司法銜接中的證據(jù)轉(zhuǎn)化問題初探——基于修正后的《刑事訴訟法》第52條第2款的思考[J];中國刑事法雜志;2012年05期
相關(guān)重要報紙文章 前2條
1 杜開林 ;陳偉;;行政執(zhí)法中收集的言詞證據(jù)不可直接作為刑事訴訟證據(jù)[N];人民法院報;2013年
2 張永超;;行政機(jī)關(guān)收集的證據(jù)僅限于實物證據(jù)[N];檢察日報;2013年
相關(guān)博士學(xué)位論文 前1條
1 李辰星;行政執(zhí)法與刑事司法銜接機(jī)制研究[D];武漢大學(xué);2013年
，本文編號：2288824
本文鏈接：http://sikaile.net/falvlunwen/susongfa/2288824.html
最近更新
教材專著
