【摘要】：我國(guó)現(xiàn)行的刑訴立法條文明確規(guī)定了證人在詢問過程中應(yīng)當(dāng)如實(shí)告知所知悉的案件信息,因?yàn)檠栽~證據(jù)在案件的訴訟偵破過程中有著其他證據(jù)類型無法替代的優(yōu)勢(shì),故而這樣的立法條文規(guī)定本是無可厚非的。但是,當(dāng)證人與犯罪嫌疑人或被告人之間存在親屬關(guān)系時(shí),法定的作證義務(wù)便會(huì)使證人處于兩難境地。如果親屬證人違背自己的內(nèi)心意愿選擇作證,其內(nèi)心將會(huì)受到極大的煎熬,如果親屬證人順從自己的內(nèi)心意愿拒絕作證,又會(huì)違背相關(guān)的法律規(guī)定,因?yàn)槲覈?guó)法律規(guī)定證人有如實(shí)作證的義務(wù)。面臨此種情形,大部分國(guó)家都選擇了在立法上設(shè)置親屬拒證權(quán),用來緩解親屬證人的兩難處境。我國(guó)更應(yīng)該在繼承歷史文化的基礎(chǔ)上設(shè)置立法中具體的親屬拒證權(quán)。我國(guó)歷史上是存在有親屬拒證權(quán)的,該權(quán)利可以說是逐漸從親親相隱制度轉(zhuǎn)變過來的。親親相隱制度自產(chǎn)生以后便被歷代的統(tǒng)治者所承認(rèn),并逐漸上升到立法層面,并最終轉(zhuǎn)變?yōu)橛H屬拒證權(quán)。但是自新中國(guó)成立后,我國(guó)刑訴立法中并沒有設(shè)置親屬拒證權(quán)。一直到2012年我國(guó)的刑事訴訟立法中才有了體現(xiàn)該項(xiàng)權(quán)利內(nèi)容立法精神的條文。但是,我國(guó)目前畢竟還沒有建立起真正的親屬拒證權(quán),因?yàn)樵摍?quán)利最基本的內(nèi)容體現(xiàn)應(yīng)當(dāng)是親屬證人享有的拒絕作證的權(quán)利,拒絕出庭的權(quán)利只是部分國(guó)家立法設(shè)置的內(nèi)容。因此,本文通過歷史分析的方法、文獻(xiàn)研究的方法等對(duì)親屬拒證權(quán)進(jìn)行了論述,并主要通過四部分章節(jié)來展現(xiàn)本文的主要內(nèi)容。第一章概括論述了親屬拒證權(quán)在我國(guó)具體的發(fā)展歷程。該部分運(yùn)用歷史研究方法,沿著歷史發(fā)展的脈絡(luò),對(duì)我國(guó)親屬拒證權(quán)的產(chǎn)生、發(fā)展及現(xiàn)狀進(jìn)行了論述。其內(nèi)容主要包括我國(guó)親親相隱制度的歷史演變過程和該制度向親屬拒證權(quán)的轉(zhuǎn)型過程以及我國(guó)現(xiàn)在的立法狀況。第二章梳理了兩大法系國(guó)家親屬拒證權(quán)的立法條文,包括英國(guó)、美國(guó)和德國(guó)、日本的立法現(xiàn)狀,并在此基礎(chǔ)上進(jìn)行了比較研究。第三章分析了我國(guó)現(xiàn)行的立法中存在的一些問題及原因。其中對(duì)于存在的問題采用列舉的方式,主要包括法律適用上的沖突,主體適用范圍狹窄,且界定不明確,親屬拒證權(quán)的適用階段不完整,缺乏相應(yīng)的保障和救濟(jì)措施以及沒有適用該特權(quán)的例外規(guī)定等問題。對(duì)于原因分析這部分內(nèi)容,主要從以下幾個(gè)方面進(jìn)行陳述,包括過度批判和抵制我國(guó)傳統(tǒng)的法律制度和文獻(xiàn)、機(jī)械照搬前蘇聯(lián)的訴訟制度和理論等方面,另外還分析了我國(guó)法律思想方面的原因。第四章論述了設(shè)置該權(quán)利的必要性及具體的理論考量,是本文的重難點(diǎn)。主要是從促進(jìn)社會(huì)和諧、樹立法律權(quán)威以及提高訴訟效率等方面來論述我國(guó)構(gòu)建親屬拒證權(quán)的必要性。同時(shí)從構(gòu)建從親屬拒證權(quán)的基本類型、權(quán)利主體、保障與救濟(jì)措施以及例外的變通規(guī)定等方面來論述構(gòu)建我國(guó)親屬拒證權(quán)的具體規(guī)定。
[Abstract]:China's current legislative provisions on criminal procedure clearly stipulate that witnesses should truthfully inform the known case information in the course of questioning, because the verbal evidence has the advantage that other types of evidence cannot be replaced in the course of the investigation of the case. Therefore, such a legislative provision would not be beyond reproach. However, when there is a kinship between the witness and the suspect or defendant, the legal obligation to testify will put the witness in a dilemma. If a relative witness chooses to testify against his or her inner will, he or she will suffer a great deal, and if a relative witness refuses to testify against his or her inner will, he or she will also violate the relevant legal provisions, Because the law of our country stipulates that the witness has the obligation to testify truthfully. In order to alleviate the dilemma of relatives witnesses, most countries choose to set the right of refusing relatives in legislation. On the basis of inheriting the history and culture, our country should set up the specific relatives' right of refusing evidence in the legislation. In the history of our country, there exists the right of refusing evidence from relatives, which can be said to have been gradually transformed from the system of closeness between relatives and relatives. Since the birth of the system, the system has been recognized by the rulers of all dynasties, and gradually rose to the legislative level, and eventually transformed into the right of refusal of relatives. However, since the founding of New China, there is no right of refusal of relatives in the legislation of criminal procedure in China. It was not until 2012 that the legislative spirit of this right was embodied in the criminal procedure legislation of our country. However, at present, our country has not established the real right of refusing to testify, because the most basic content of this right should be the right of the relative witness to refuse to testify, and the right of refusing to appear in court is only the content of some national legislation. Therefore, through the methods of historical analysis and literature research, this paper discusses the right to refuse evidence of relatives, and mainly through four chapters to show the main contents of this paper. The first chapter briefly discusses the specific development process of the right to refuse evidence of relatives in our country. This part uses the historical research method, along the historical development vein, discusses the birth, development and present situation of the relatives' right of refusing to testify in our country. Its contents mainly include the historical evolution process of the system of close relatives and the transition process from the system to the right of refusing evidence from relatives and the present legislative situation of our country. The second chapter combs the legislative provisions of the right of refusing evidence of relatives in the two legal systems, including Britain, the United States, Germany and Japan, and makes a comparative study on this basis. The third chapter analyzes some problems and reasons existing in the current legislation of our country. The existing problems include conflicts in the application of law, narrow scope of subject application, unclear definition and incomplete stage of application of the right of refusal of evidence of relatives, among which the existing problems are enumerated, including conflicts in the application of law, narrow scope of subject application, and unclear definition. The lack of corresponding safeguards and relief measures and the absence of exceptions to the privilege. For the reason analysis this part, mainly from the following aspects to state, including excessive criticism and resistance to our traditional legal system and literature, mechanical copying of the former Soviet Union litigation system and theory, and so on. In addition, it also analyzes the reasons of the legal thought of our country. The fourth chapter discusses the necessity of setting up the right and the specific theoretical considerations, which is the most difficult point of this paper. This paper mainly discusses the necessity of constructing relatives' right of refusing evidence from the aspects of promoting social harmony, establishing legal authority and improving the efficiency of litigation. At the same time, from the aspects of the basic type, the subject of the right, the safeguard and relief measures and the modification of the exception, this paper discusses the specific provisions of the right to refuse the certificate of the relatives of our country.
【學(xué)位授予單位】：甘肅政法學(xué)院
【學(xué)位級(jí)別】：碩士
【學(xué)位授予年份】：2017
【分類號(hào)】：D925.2

【相似文獻(xiàn)】

相關(guān)期刊論文 前10條

1 胡惠英,李愛君;證人拒證的成因及對(duì)策[J];河北師范大學(xué)學(xué)報(bào)(哲學(xué)社會(huì)科學(xué)版);2005年03期

2 徐昕;;法官為什么不相信證人[J];法制資訊;2008年03期

3 王杏飛,賴建云;中美民事證人制度比較研究[J];當(dāng)代法學(xué);2002年04期

4 蘇詠梅;完善證人制度的價(jià)值目標(biāo)及模式選擇芻議[J];福建政法管理干部學(xué)院學(xué)報(bào);2002年04期

5 裴樺;論民事證人拒不出庭作證的法律制裁[J];法制與社會(huì)發(fā)展;2002年04期

6 汪衛(wèi)東;“單位證人”的法律思考[J];中國(guó)律師;2002年04期

7 張平華,畢海平,韓剛;單位的證人主體資格質(zhì)疑[J];株洲工學(xué)院學(xué)報(bào);2005年02期

8 譚世貴;邵毅超;;建立臥底證人制度初探[J];云南大學(xué)學(xué)報(bào)(法學(xué)版);2006年01期

9 畢海毅;;從中英兩國(guó)兒童作證案例看我國(guó)證人制度的完善[J];內(nèi)蒙古財(cái)經(jīng)學(xué)院學(xué)報(bào)(綜合版);2006年04期

10 李昕;;論中國(guó)古代證人制度及其現(xiàn)代借鑒[J];法制與社會(huì);2007年05期

相關(guān)重要報(bào)紙文章 前10條

1 王琳;錄像詢問：嘗試解決證人作證難[N];檢察日?qǐng)?bào);2001年

2 陳愛和;給“職業(yè)證人”定位[N];民主與法制時(shí)報(bào);2003年

3 本報(bào)記者 宿華文;法官分析：證人為何出庭難[N];人民法院報(bào);2004年

4 鄭易滌;改變證人拒證現(xiàn)象的新思路[N];人民法院報(bào);2003年

5 陳月林;應(yīng)重視證人的尊嚴(yán)及權(quán)益[N];檢察日?qǐng)?bào);2003年

6 孫飚 樊中秋;民事訴訟中證人相關(guān)問題之管見[N];江蘇經(jīng)濟(jì)報(bào);2002年

7 山東魯浩律師事務(wù)所 張新軍;民事訴訟中的證人出庭制度[N];萊蕪日?qǐng)?bào);2007年

8 戴立國(guó)　夏學(xué)仁;十種顧慮影響作證[N];檢察日?qǐng)?bào);2002年

9 徐澄濤;從修正案視角看證人制度[N];江蘇法制報(bào);2012年

10 張旭;民事訴訟證人制度存在的缺陷[N];江蘇法制報(bào);2005年

相關(guān)博士學(xué)位論文 前2條

1 何邦武;刑事傳聞規(guī)則研究[D];西南政法大學(xué);2006年

2 張弘;論證據(jù)裁判原則[D];中國(guó)政法大學(xué);2006年

相關(guān)碩士學(xué)位論文 前10條

1 左大鵬;論民事訴訟單位證人的適格性[D];廣西大學(xué);2015年

2 馬婷婷;我國(guó)民事訴訟證人保證書制度研究[D];海南大學(xué);2016年

3 樊劍潔;審判階段被告人對(duì)質(zhì)詰問權(quán)研究[D];南京大學(xué);2016年

4 姜國(guó)治;我國(guó)刑事訴訟中親屬拒證權(quán)研究[D];甘肅政法學(xué)院;2017年

5 董曉楠;刑事證人、證言規(guī)則研究[D];黑龍江大學(xué);2004年

6 胡鐵民;證人特權(quán)制度研究[D];蘇州大學(xué);2007年

7 劉華錦;論單位證人應(yīng)予以廢除[D];西南政法大學(xué);2013年

8 楊勇;論我國(guó)民事證人制度的現(xiàn)狀及建議[D];蘭州大學(xué);2012年

9 祁愛莉;拒證權(quán)研究[D];廈門大學(xué);2006年

10 章翔宇;民事訴訟證人拒絕作證特權(quán)規(guī)則論[D];西南政法大學(xué);2003年

，

本文編號(hào)：2443520