論刑事訴訟中的嚴格證明
發(fā)布時間：2018-11-16 13:25
【摘要】：嚴格證明法則起源于德國,隨后傳入日本及我國臺灣地區(qū),現(xiàn)在已成為多數(shù)大陸法系國家（地區(qū)）刑事證明理論的重要組成部分。證明活動決定證明質(zhì)量,要求越是嚴格的證明活動,其產(chǎn)生的證明結(jié)果也越可靠。對于刑事案件來說,大多數(shù)待證事實與案件認定結(jié)果及被告人的權(quán)益緊密相關(guān),對于這些事實,唯有運用嚴格證明規(guī)則來規(guī)制證明活動,案件事實的認定才能更加準確,被告人的合法權(quán)益才能獲得有效的保障。近年來,多起重大冤假錯案暴露出我國刑事訴訟在法庭審理階段證據(jù)調(diào)查和認定案件事實方面的不足,黨和國家（地區(qū)）司法機關(guān)高度重視這一問題,并發(fā)起了以審判為中心的訴訟制度改革,希望全面貫徹證據(jù)裁判規(guī)則,保證庭審在查明事實、認定證據(jù)、保護訴權(quán)、公正裁判中發(fā)揮決定性作用。嚴格證明的理念與價值既昭示了現(xiàn)代司法追求法治程序的潮流,又符合當下中國司法改革的需求。從訴訟模式及司法傳統(tǒng)來看,我國與大陸法系也比較接近,在我國刑事訴訟中引入嚴格證明規(guī)則具有可行性。本文力圖通過闡述、分析德國、日本、臺灣地區(qū)嚴格證明理論的內(nèi)容及相互間的異同,深入探知嚴格證明的精髓,為我國學(xué)習(xí)、引入嚴格證明提供借鑒。本文的主體部分共分四章。第一章,嚴格證明的基本原理。該章主要介紹德國、日本及臺灣地區(qū)關(guān)于嚴格證明概念的界定,嚴格證明理論與自由證明、證據(jù)禁止和自由心證的關(guān)系,以及嚴格證明在發(fā)現(xiàn)實體真實、保障人權(quán)、提高訴訟效率方面的作用。第二章,嚴格證明的證據(jù)方法。嚴格證明的證據(jù)方法是指法定證據(jù)方法,在大陸法系國家（地區(qū)）,一般是指被告、證人、鑒定人、勘驗和文書證件這五類。由于我國證據(jù)概念限定在“證據(jù)材料說”,還沒有融入“證據(jù)方法”的理念,因此《刑事訴訟法》中證據(jù)種類的劃分存在既不能概括所有形式的證據(jù)資料,同時也不利于進行有效的證據(jù)調(diào)查的弊端。第三章,嚴格證明的證據(jù)調(diào)查程序。本章先分別介紹、分析德國、日本、臺灣地區(qū)嚴格證明下證據(jù)調(diào)查程序所遵守的共同原則,即言詞審理原則、直接審理原則和公開審理原則,然后提出我國應(yīng)明確直接言詞原則,完善相關(guān)配套措施,提高當庭宣判比例等建議,以克服當下法庭證據(jù)調(diào)查程序中舉證、質(zhì)證和認證的虛化問題。第四章,嚴格證明的適用對象。合理界定嚴格證明與自由證明適用對象范圍關(guān)乎訴訟公正及訴訟效率的實現(xiàn)。該章首先對比分析德國、日本及臺灣地區(qū)界定嚴格證明與自由證明適用范圍的具體做法及理由,然后梳理出國內(nèi)學(xué)者關(guān)于此問題的不同意見并陳述各自利弊,最后提出樹立維護實體公正、有利于被告人及與證明責任負擔相適應(yīng)的劃分原則以及嚴格證明具體適用對象的范圍。
[Abstract]:The strict proof law originated in Germany and then introduced to Japan and Taiwan. Now it has become an important part of the criminal proof theory in most civil law countries (regions). Proof activity determines the quality of proof, and the more strict proof activity is required, the more reliable the proof result is. For criminal cases, most of the facts to be proved are closely related to the result of the case identification and the rights and interests of the defendant. For these facts, only the strict rules of proof can be used to regulate the proof activities, and the determination of the facts of the case can be more accurate. Only the legal rights and interests of the defendant can be effectively protected. In recent years, a number of major cases of miscarriage of justice have exposed the deficiencies in the investigation of evidence and the determination of the facts of the case in the criminal proceedings in our country. The judicial organs of the Party and the state (or region) attach great importance to this issue. The author also initiated the reform of the litigation system centered on the trial, hoping to carry out the rules of evidence judgment in an all-round way, and to ensure that the trial plays a decisive role in ascertaining the facts, confirming the evidence, protecting the right of action, and fair adjudication. The concept and value of strict proof not only show the trend of modern judicial pursuit of the rule of law, but also meet the needs of the current judicial reform in China. From the point of view of litigation mode and judicial tradition, our country is close to civil law system, and it is feasible to introduce strict rules of proof in our criminal procedure. This paper tries to analyze the contents and similarities and differences of strict proof theory in Germany, Japan and Taiwan, and to explore the essence of strict proof in order to provide reference for our country to study and introduce strict proof. The main part of this paper is divided into four chapters. Chapter one, the basic principle of strict proof. This chapter mainly introduces the definition of the concept of strict proof in Germany, Japan and Taiwan, the relationship between strict proof theory and free proof, the relationship between evidence prohibition and free evidence, and the strict proof in the discovery of entity truth and the protection of human rights. The role of improving the efficiency of litigation. Chapter two, evidence method of strict proof. The proof method of strict proof is to point to the legal evidence method, in the civil law system country (area), generally refer to the defendant, witness, expert, examine and document these five kinds. Since the concept of evidence in our country is limited to "theory of evidence material" and has not been incorporated into the concept of "method of evidence", the classification of evidence types in Criminal procedure Law cannot generalize all forms of evidence material. At the same time, it is not conducive to the drawbacks of effective evidence investigation. Chapter III, strictly proven evidence investigation procedures. This chapter first introduces and analyzes the common principles of evidence investigation procedure strictly proved by Germany, Japan and Taiwan, that is, the principle of word trial, the principle of direct trial and the principle of public hearing. Then put forward that our country should clear the principle of direct words, improve the relevant supporting measures, improve the proportion of sentencing in court, and so on, in order to overcome the current court evidence investigation procedure, cross-examination and authentication of the problem of vanity. Chapter four, the object of strict proof. Reasonable definition of the scope of application of strict proof and free proof is related to the justice of litigation and the realization of litigation efficiency. This chapter first compares and analyzes the specific practices and reasons for defining the scope of application of strict proof and free proof in Germany, Japan and Taiwan, and then combs out the different opinions of domestic scholars on this issue and states their respective advantages and disadvantages. Finally, the author puts forward the principle of dividing the defendant and the burden of proof, and the scope of strict proof of the specific applicable object.
【學(xué)位授予單位】：南京師范大學(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：2335630
[Abstract]:The strict proof law originated in Germany and then introduced to Japan and Taiwan. Now it has become an important part of the criminal proof theory in most civil law countries (regions). Proof activity determines the quality of proof, and the more strict proof activity is required, the more reliable the proof result is. For criminal cases, most of the facts to be proved are closely related to the result of the case identification and the rights and interests of the defendant. For these facts, only the strict rules of proof can be used to regulate the proof activities, and the determination of the facts of the case can be more accurate. Only the legal rights and interests of the defendant can be effectively protected. In recent years, a number of major cases of miscarriage of justice have exposed the deficiencies in the investigation of evidence and the determination of the facts of the case in the criminal proceedings in our country. The judicial organs of the Party and the state (or region) attach great importance to this issue. The author also initiated the reform of the litigation system centered on the trial, hoping to carry out the rules of evidence judgment in an all-round way, and to ensure that the trial plays a decisive role in ascertaining the facts, confirming the evidence, protecting the right of action, and fair adjudication. The concept and value of strict proof not only show the trend of modern judicial pursuit of the rule of law, but also meet the needs of the current judicial reform in China. From the point of view of litigation mode and judicial tradition, our country is close to civil law system, and it is feasible to introduce strict rules of proof in our criminal procedure. This paper tries to analyze the contents and similarities and differences of strict proof theory in Germany, Japan and Taiwan, and to explore the essence of strict proof in order to provide reference for our country to study and introduce strict proof. The main part of this paper is divided into four chapters. Chapter one, the basic principle of strict proof. This chapter mainly introduces the definition of the concept of strict proof in Germany, Japan and Taiwan, the relationship between strict proof theory and free proof, the relationship between evidence prohibition and free evidence, and the strict proof in the discovery of entity truth and the protection of human rights. The role of improving the efficiency of litigation. Chapter two, evidence method of strict proof. The proof method of strict proof is to point to the legal evidence method, in the civil law system country (area), generally refer to the defendant, witness, expert, examine and document these five kinds. Since the concept of evidence in our country is limited to "theory of evidence material" and has not been incorporated into the concept of "method of evidence", the classification of evidence types in Criminal procedure Law cannot generalize all forms of evidence material. At the same time, it is not conducive to the drawbacks of effective evidence investigation. Chapter III, strictly proven evidence investigation procedures. This chapter first introduces and analyzes the common principles of evidence investigation procedure strictly proved by Germany, Japan and Taiwan, that is, the principle of word trial, the principle of direct trial and the principle of public hearing. Then put forward that our country should clear the principle of direct words, improve the relevant supporting measures, improve the proportion of sentencing in court, and so on, in order to overcome the current court evidence investigation procedure, cross-examination and authentication of the problem of vanity. Chapter four, the object of strict proof. Reasonable definition of the scope of application of strict proof and free proof is related to the justice of litigation and the realization of litigation efficiency. This chapter first compares and analyzes the specific practices and reasons for defining the scope of application of strict proof and free proof in Germany, Japan and Taiwan, and then combs out the different opinions of domestic scholars on this issue and states their respective advantages and disadvantages. Finally, the author puts forward the principle of dividing the defendant and the burden of proof, and the scope of strict proof of the specific applicable object.
【學(xué)位授予單位】：南京師范大學(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】
相關(guān)期刊論文 前10條
1 魏曉娜;;以審判為中心的刑事訴訟制度改革[J];法學(xué)研究;2015年04期
2 張寧;;淺議刑事訴訟嚴格證明與自由證明之適用范圍[J];湖南警察學(xué)院學(xué)報;2014年03期
3 周成泓;廖榮興;;論自由證明規(guī)則的構(gòu)建[J];湖南警察學(xué)院學(xué)報;2013年02期
4 王滿生;;刑事證明方法研究——以嚴格證明與自由證明為分析理路[J];西南民族大學(xué)學(xué)報(人文社會科學(xué)版);2012年12期
5 龍宗智;;進步及其局限——由證據(jù)制度調(diào)整的觀察[J];政法論壇;2012年05期
6 陳瑞華;;案卷移送制度的演變與反思[J];政法論壇;2012年05期
7 陳瑞華;;證據(jù)的概念與法定種類[J];法律適用;2012年01期
8 何家弘;;刑事庭審虛化的實證研究[J];法學(xué)家;2011年06期
9 閔春雷;;嚴格證明與自由證明新探[J];中外法學(xué);2010年05期
10 縱博;郝愛軍;;刑事訴訟嚴格證明的若干問題[J];西南政法大學(xué)學(xué)報;2010年01期
相關(guān)碩士學(xué)位論文 前1條
1 尹靜;刑事訴訟中的嚴格證明與自由證明[D];西南政法大學(xué);2008年
，本文編號：2335630
本文鏈接：http://sikaile.net/falvlunwen/susongfa/2335630.html
