【摘要】：由于瑕疵證據(jù)在違法性方面表現(xiàn)出來的特殊性，使得其一直游離于合法證據(jù)與非法證據(jù)之間。在司法實(shí)踐的實(shí)際應(yīng)用中，由于立法未能作出明確規(guī)定，導(dǎo)致瑕疵證據(jù)一直處于一種尷尬境地。隨著2010年有關(guān)司法解釋的頒布實(shí)施和2012年《刑事訴訟法》的修改，瑕疵證據(jù)的補(bǔ)正制度得以逐步確立起來。這是因?yàn)榭紤]到訴訟投入與最終獲得收益之間的“性價(jià)比”，才最終給予瑕疵證據(jù)進(jìn)行補(bǔ)正的機(jī)會(huì)。如此一來，不僅可以彌補(bǔ)非法證據(jù)排除規(guī)則的缺陷，還有利于發(fā)現(xiàn)案件真實(shí)，對(duì)于規(guī)范刑事司法實(shí)踐中的取證行為也具有重要意義。瑕疵證據(jù)經(jīng)過補(bǔ)正達(dá)到治愈標(biāo)準(zhǔn)之后，影響其證據(jù)能力的缺陷得以彌補(bǔ)，因而瑕疵證據(jù)也隨之得以獲得證據(jù)能力，就不再是原來的證據(jù)能力待定的證據(jù)。但是瑕疵證據(jù)的違法性身份并沒有因此改變，，此時(shí)的瑕疵證據(jù)仍然是不合法證據(jù)，通過補(bǔ)正改變的只是瑕疵證據(jù)的證據(jù)能力，而并沒有改變瑕疵證據(jù)原來所具有的違法性特征。這樣在發(fā)揮其作用的同時(shí)，又保持對(duì)不規(guī)范取證行為的否定。不過在對(duì)瑕疵證據(jù)的補(bǔ)正限度作出合理限定之前，難免會(huì)讓人產(chǎn)生架空非法證據(jù)排除規(guī)則的擔(dān)憂，因而在對(duì)補(bǔ)正的操作主體作出規(guī)定之后，有必要再輔以相應(yīng)的登記備案，以便使補(bǔ)正的期限和次數(shù)能夠在制度的有效規(guī)范之中。構(gòu)建一個(gè)相對(duì)完善的瑕疵證據(jù)補(bǔ)正制度，還需要對(duì)瑕疵證據(jù)的補(bǔ)正程序、補(bǔ)正方法、治愈標(biāo)準(zhǔn)和補(bǔ)正限度等作出詳細(xì)的制度設(shè)計(jì)。
[Abstract]:Because of the particularity of defective evidence in illegality, it is always between legal evidence and illegal evidence. In the practical application of judicial practice, the defective evidence has always been in an awkward situation because the legislation failed to make clear provisions. With the promulgation and implementation of the judicial interpretation in 2010 and the revision of the Criminal procedure Law in 2012, the system of correcting defective evidence has been gradually established. This is because considering the cost-to-performance ratio between litigation input and final return, the opportunity to correct defective evidence is finally given. In this way, it can not only remedy the defects of the rule of exclusion of illegal evidence, but also help to find the truth of the case, and it is also of great significance to standardize the practice of criminal justice. After the defective evidence has been corrected to reach the standard of cure, the defects affecting its ability of evidence can be made up, so that the defective evidence can also be obtained with the ability of evidence, so it is no longer the original evidence capacity to be determined. However, the illegal identity of defective evidence has not changed, at this time, defective evidence is still illegal evidence, through the correction of only the defective evidence of the ability of evidence, and did not change the defective evidence with the original illegal characteristics. In this way, while playing its role, while maintaining the non-standard evidence-taking behavior of the negative. However, before the limits of the correction of defective evidence are reasonably limited, it will inevitably cause people to worry about the exclusion rules of overhead illegal evidence. Therefore, after the provisions have been made on the subject of the correction, it is necessary to supplement the corresponding registration and record. In order to make the time limit and times of correction in the effective norms of the system. In order to construct a relatively perfect system of correction of defective evidence, it is necessary to design in detail the procedures, methods, standards and limits of correction of defective evidence.
【學(xué)位授予單位】：煙臺(tái)大學(xué)
【學(xué)位級(jí)別】：碩士
【學(xué)位授予年份】：2014
【分類號(hào)】：D925.2

【參考文獻(xiàn)】

相關(guān)期刊論文 前10條

1 萬毅;;論瑕疵證據(jù)——以“兩個(gè)《證據(jù)規(guī)定》”為分析對(duì)象[J];法商研究;2011年05期

2 陳瑞華;;論被告人口供規(guī)則[J];法學(xué)雜志;2012年06期

3 陳瑞華;;論瑕疵證據(jù)補(bǔ)正規(guī)則[J];法學(xué)家;2012年02期

4 任華哲;郭寅穎;;論刑事訴訟中的瑕疵證據(jù)[J];法學(xué)評(píng)論;2009年04期

5 呂廣倫;羅國良;劉雅玲;王鋒永;馮黔剛;朱晶晶;;《關(guān)于辦理刑事案件排除非法證據(jù)若干問題的規(guī)定》理解與適用[J];人民檢察;2010年16期

6 胡忠惠;徐志濤;;刑事瑕疵證據(jù)的文本分析[J];人民檢察;2013年13期

7 萬毅;;論“刑訊逼供”的解釋與認(rèn)定——以“兩個(gè)《證據(jù)規(guī)定》”的適用為中心[J];現(xiàn)代法學(xué);2011年03期

8 陳瑞華;大陸法中的訴訟行為無效制度——三個(gè)法律文本的考察[J];政法論壇;2003年05期

9 鄭旭;;帕特恩案與毒樹之果理論的演變[J];中國審判;2008年11期

10 夏紅;龔云飛;;合法與非法之間——以兩個(gè)《規(guī)定》對(duì)瑕疵證據(jù)的立場(chǎng)為切入點(diǎn)[J];中國刑事法雜志;2012年03期

本文編號(hào)：2371562