【摘要】：證據(jù)是刑事訴訟審判過(guò)程中查明事實(shí)的依據(jù),若定罪證據(jù)不足則意味著刑事犯罪事實(shí)無(wú)法確認(rèn),由此就不能認(rèn)定被告人有罪。我國(guó)1979年的刑事訴訟法規(guī)定,一審證據(jù)不足的案件,必須退回檢察院；1996年的刑事訴訟法更是進(jìn)一步規(guī)定“證據(jù)不足,不能認(rèn)定被告人有罪的,應(yīng)當(dāng)作出證據(jù)不足、指控的犯罪不能成立的無(wú)罪判決”。然而,在司法實(shí)踐中,法院在事實(shí)不清、證據(jù)不足之時(shí),直接作出有罪或拖延判決(定罪證據(jù)不足的違法裁判)的情形時(shí)有發(fā)生,如趙作海案、張氏叔侄案、李懷亮案等。定罪證據(jù)不足的違法裁判現(xiàn)象頻頻出現(xiàn),不利于我國(guó)刑事訴訟法人權(quán)保護(hù)功能的實(shí)現(xiàn),也不利于我國(guó)現(xiàn)代化法治建設(shè),必須采取相應(yīng)措施予以規(guī)制。 本文分為四個(gè)部分,從分析存在于實(shí)踐中的定罪證據(jù)不足的違法裁判方式的現(xiàn)象著手,探尋這種違法裁判方式產(chǎn)生的原因及危害,從而對(duì)規(guī)制法院在定罪證據(jù)不足時(shí)實(shí)施的違法裁判行為提出對(duì)策。 第一部分列舉了違法裁判方式的形式,通過(guò)對(duì)有關(guān)案例進(jìn)行相應(yīng)的分類,論述違法裁判方式的類型,即無(wú)視疑點(diǎn)的有罪判決、留有余地的有罪判決以及拖延判決三種形式。 第二部分對(duì)違法裁判方式的危害進(jìn)行論述。通過(guò)對(duì)相關(guān)案例的解析,明確違法裁判對(duì)刑事司法存在以下危害：增加刑事錯(cuò)案的風(fēng)險(xiǎn)、降低偵查起訴的質(zhì)量,以及窒礙刑事辯護(hù)權(quán)的行使和導(dǎo)致超期羈押等。 第三部分著重分析各種違法裁判方式存在的原因。我國(guó)一直存在著嚴(yán)重的偵查中心主義傾向,對(duì)證據(jù)的作用及判決說(shuō)理過(guò)于忽視,再加上法院會(huì)受到體制內(nèi)與體制外的各機(jī)關(guān)、團(tuán)體以及個(gè)人的干預(yù),導(dǎo)致法官在審判的過(guò)程中,過(guò)于注重利益權(quán)衡及風(fēng)險(xiǎn)規(guī)避,而無(wú)法做到“以事實(shí)為依據(jù),以法律為準(zhǔn)繩”。 第四部分主要是根據(jù)我國(guó)刑事訴訟法治的具體實(shí)際情況,提出杜絕違法裁判方式,落實(shí)疑罪從無(wú)原則的具體對(duì)策,包括完善刑事訴訟體制,保障法院外部獨(dú)立,建立法院內(nèi)部獨(dú)立制度和完善錯(cuò)案追責(zé)制度。
[Abstract]:Evidence is the basis for finding out the facts in the course of criminal proceedings. If the conviction evidence is insufficient, it means that the fact of the criminal offence cannot be confirmed, and therefore the accused can not be found guilty. According to the Criminal procedure Law of 1979, the cases of lack of evidence in first instance must be returned to the procuratorate. The Criminal procedure Law of 1996 further stipulates that "if the evidence is insufficient, if the accused cannot be found guilty, he shall make an acquittal of the lack of evidence and the inadmissibility of the alleged crime". However, in judicial practice, when the facts are not clear and the evidence is insufficient, the court often makes a guilty or delaying judgment (the illegal judgment with insufficient conviction evidence), such as Zhao Zuohai case, Zhang's nephew case, Li Huailiang case and so on. The phenomenon of illegal adjudication with insufficient evidence of conviction appears frequently, which is not conducive to the realization of the human rights protection function of our criminal procedure law, nor to the construction of modern rule of law in our country, so we must take corresponding measures to regulate it. This article is divided into four parts, starting from the analysis of the phenomenon of illegal adjudication which has insufficient evidence of conviction in practice, to explore the causes and harm of this illegal adjudication. The countermeasures are put forward to regulate the illegal adjudication behavior of the court when the conviction evidence is insufficient. The first part enumerates the forms of illegal adjudication, through the corresponding classification of relevant cases, discusses the types of illegal adjudication, that is, ignoring the doubt of the guilty judgment, leaving room for the guilty judgment and procrastination of the three forms. The second part discusses the harm of illegal adjudication. Through the analysis of relevant cases, it is clear that illegal adjudication has the following harm to criminal justice: increase the risk of criminal error, reduce the quality of investigation and prosecution, and stifle the exercise of the right to criminal defense and lead to extended detention, and so on. The third part focuses on the analysis of the reasons for the existence of various illegal adjudication methods. In our country, there has always been a serious tendency of centralism of investigation, which neglects the role of evidence and the reasoning of judgment, plus that the court will be interfered by various organs, groups and individuals within and outside the system, leading to the judges in the course of trial. Too much attention to the balance of interests and risk aversion, and can not achieve "based on the facts, the law as the yardstick." The fourth part is mainly according to the actual situation of our country's criminal procedure law, put forward to put an end to the illegal adjudication way, carry out the concrete countermeasure that suspects the crime from no principle, including perfect the criminal procedure system, safeguard the court outside the independence, To establish an independent system within the court and to perfect the system of pursuing misdemeanor cases.
【學(xué)位授予單位】：西南政法大學(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 朱桐輝;;案外因素與案內(nèi)裁量:疑罪難從無(wú)之謎[J];當(dāng)代法學(xué);2011年05期

2 溫登平;;論刑事判決說(shuō)理的方法與準(zhǔn)則[J];法律方法;2011年00期

3 萬(wàn)春;;論構(gòu)建有中國(guó)特色的司法獨(dú)立制度[J];法學(xué)家;2002年03期

4 龍宗智,李常青;論司法獨(dú)立與司法受制[J];法學(xué);1998年12期

5 楚京輝;王健;;呼格吉勒?qǐng)D,又一個(gè)聶樹(shù)斌?[J];法律與生活;2006年18期

6 莫洪憲,潘勤毅;從佘祥林案看和諧社會(huì)的刑事程序公正和獨(dú)立[J];江蘇警官學(xué)院學(xué)報(bào);2005年04期

7 沈德詠;;我們應(yīng)當(dāng)如何防范冤假錯(cuò)案[J];法制資訊;2013年05期

8 鄧思清,蔡巍;論我國(guó)刑事再審啟動(dòng)程序的缺陷及其完善[J];人民檢察;2004年09期

9 孫健;鄒緋箭;;錯(cuò)案發(fā)生的經(jīng)濟(jì)學(xué)分析與糾正機(jī)制設(shè)計(jì)原則探討[J];人民檢察;2010年05期

10 陳衛(wèi)東,韓紅興;以法官獨(dú)立為核心 推動(dòng)我國(guó)法官制度的現(xiàn)代化[J];人民司法;2002年02期

相關(guān)博士學(xué)位論文 前1條

1 唐世齊;刑事判決說(shuō)理制度研究[D];吉林大學(xué);2012年

，

本文編號(hào)：2388470