【摘要】：在刑事訴訟中,證明標(biāo)準(zhǔn)是一個重要的法律概念,也是近年來在學(xué)術(shù)領(lǐng)域引起廣泛討論的一個話題。證明標(biāo)準(zhǔn)的重要性體現(xiàn)在其對刑事案件的立案、偵查、審查起訴、提起公訴、法庭審理等各個環(huán)節(jié)的指引作用,公、檢、法三機(jī)關(guān)的辦案人員正是在證明標(biāo)準(zhǔn)的指引下開展相關(guān)的工作,確保刑事案件在各個環(huán)節(jié)能夠得到正確的處理。其中,在對被告人作出有罪判決的刑事案件中,法官要根據(jù)證明標(biāo)準(zhǔn)來判斷公訴機(jī)關(guān)對被告人的有罪指控是否達(dá)到了法律規(guī)定的要求,這對于保證判決的準(zhǔn)確性而言具有重要作用。在重大刑事案件中,被告人的犯罪行為給社會和他人造成了極其惡劣的影響,根據(jù)罪責(zé)刑相適應(yīng)的原則,被告人有可能被判處死刑,而一旦錯判,就會造成無法挽回的后果。在我國的司法實踐中,刑事案件的審判質(zhì)量一直備受質(zhì)疑,特別是近些年來出現(xiàn)的佘祥林案、杜培武案、浙江叔侄案等一批冤假錯案,不僅給無辜的“被告人”造成了極大的損失,更使司法的權(quán)威受到了極大的威脅。出現(xiàn)這種現(xiàn)象,與我國證明標(biāo)準(zhǔn)的存在的不足和缺陷有直接的關(guān)系�；诖�,學(xué)者和司法實務(wù)人士對死刑案件的證明標(biāo)準(zhǔn)給予了高度的關(guān)注,以期通過確立一個切實、可行的證明標(biāo)準(zhǔn)來減少死刑誤判、錯判的可能性,使死刑案件審判質(zhì)量可以得到提高。 在諸多學(xué)者對該問題進(jìn)行的廣泛和深入的研究基礎(chǔ)之上,本文結(jié)合兩個證據(jù)規(guī)定和新《刑事訴訟法》對證明標(biāo)準(zhǔn)的完善,并通過對2013年再審的浙江叔侄案的剖析,對證明標(biāo)準(zhǔn)問題進(jìn)行了研究,并提出通過完善相關(guān)程序來保證死刑案件判決質(zhì)量的觀點。 第一章是證明標(biāo)準(zhǔn)的概述,對證明標(biāo)準(zhǔn)的概念、意義進(jìn)行了簡要闡述,并介紹了證明標(biāo)準(zhǔn)的歷史,其中重點對“排除合理懷疑”的證明標(biāo)準(zhǔn)和“內(nèi)心確信”的證明標(biāo)準(zhǔn)進(jìn)行了研究。 第二章是我國證明標(biāo)準(zhǔn)的確立,研究了我國“事實清楚,證據(jù)確實、充分”的證明標(biāo)準(zhǔn)從無到有的確立過程,并對這一獨具特色的證明標(biāo)準(zhǔn)進(jìn)行了評析。 第三章是我國證明標(biāo)準(zhǔn)在司法實踐中引發(fā)的問題,主要是通過對浙江張高平、張輝叔侄一案進(jìn)行分析,總結(jié)了近些年出現(xiàn)的冤假錯案中反映出的證明標(biāo)準(zhǔn)存在的問題。 第四章是證明標(biāo)準(zhǔn)新規(guī)定的理解與適用,主要是《死刑案件證據(jù)規(guī)定》和新《刑事訴訟法》對證明標(biāo)準(zhǔn)的新規(guī)定,并對新規(guī)定的理解和適用進(jìn)行了分析。 第五章是對死刑案件證明標(biāo)準(zhǔn)貫徹、落實措施的思考,主張區(qū)分定罪程序與量刑程序,并適用不同的證明標(biāo)準(zhǔn)；實行多元化的證明標(biāo)準(zhǔn),根據(jù)證明對象、證明責(zé)任承擔(dān)主體的不同而適用不同的證明標(biāo)準(zhǔn)；通過提高死刑案件合議庭的人數(shù)、死刑判決須經(jīng)合議庭一致同意以及完善死刑復(fù)核程序來提高作出死刑判決的條件,以此保證死刑判決的準(zhǔn)確性。
[Abstract]:In criminal proceedings, proof standard is an important legal concept, and it is also a topic widely discussed in academic field in recent years. The importance of the standard of proof is reflected in its guiding role in filing criminal cases, investigating, examining and prosecuting, and so on, public and procuratorial. It is under the guidance of proof standards that the case operators of the three legal organs carry out the relevant work to ensure that criminal cases can be dealt with correctly in all aspects. Among them, in criminal cases in which the defendant is convicted, the judge shall judge whether the charge of guilt against the defendant by the public prosecution organ has met the requirements prescribed by law according to the standard of proof. This plays an important role in ensuring the accuracy of the judgment. In major criminal cases, the criminal behavior of the defendant has a very bad impact on society and others. According to the principle of adaptation of responsibility and punishment, the defendant may be sentenced to death, and once misjudged, it will cause irreparable consequences. In the judicial practice of our country, the trial quality of criminal cases has been questioned all the time, especially in recent years, such as she Xianglin case, du Peiwu case, Zhejiang nephew case and so on. It not only caused great losses to innocent defendants, but also threatened the judicial authority. This phenomenon is directly related to the shortcomings and defects of the standard of proof in our country. Based on this, scholars and judicial practitioners have paid great attention to the proof standard of death penalty cases, in order to reduce the possibility of miscarriage of death penalty and misjudgment by establishing a practical and feasible proof standard. The quality of death penalty cases can be improved. On the basis of extensive and in-depth research on this issue by many scholars, this paper combines the two provisions of evidence and the improvement of the standard of proof in the new Criminal procedure Law, and through the analysis of the case of Zhejiang nephew, which was retried in 2013. This paper studies the standard of proof, and puts forward the viewpoint that the quality of death penalty cases can be guaranteed by perfecting the relevant procedures. The first chapter is an overview of the standard of proof, which briefly expounds the concept and significance of the standard of proof, and introduces the history of the standard of proof. Among them, the proof standard of eliminating reasonable doubt and the proof standard of inner conviction are studied. The second chapter is the establishment of the standard of proof in our country, which studies the process of establishing the standard of proof that "the facts are clear, the evidence is true and sufficient", and comments on this unique standard of proof. The third chapter is the problems caused by the standard of proof in the judicial practice of our country, mainly through the analysis of the case of Zhang Gaoping and Zhang Hui's nephew in Zhejiang Province, and summarizes the problems of the standard of proof reflected in the unjust and false cases in recent years. The fourth chapter is the understanding and application of the new provisions of the standard of proof, mainly the new provisions of the evidence provisions of death penalty cases and the new Code of Criminal procedure, and analyzes the understanding and application of the new provisions. The fifth chapter is the implementation of the standard of proof in death penalty cases, the implementation of measures, advocating the distinction between conviction procedures and sentencing procedures, and the application of different standards of proof; The implementation of diversified standards of proof, according to the object of proof, the burden of proof of the subject of different and applicable to different standards of proof; By increasing the number of collegial panels in death penalty cases, the death penalty sentence must be agreed by the collegial panel and the death penalty review procedure should be improved to improve the conditions for the execution of the death penalty, so as to ensure the accuracy of the death penalty sentence.
【學(xué)位授予單位】：中國政法大學(xué)
【學(xué)位級別】：碩士
【學(xué)位授予年份】：2014
【分類號】：D925.2

【參考文獻(xiàn)】

相關(guān)期刊論文 前10條

1 陳衛(wèi)東,劉計劃;關(guān)于完善我國刑事證明標(biāo)準(zhǔn)體系的若干思考[J];法律科學(xué).西北政法學(xué)院學(xué)報;2001年03期

2 陳殿福;;從錯案的產(chǎn)生談刑事案件證明標(biāo)準(zhǔn)的幾個問題[J];法律適用;2006年07期

3 楊宇冠;孫軍;;“排除合理懷疑”與我國刑事訴訟證明標(biāo)準(zhǔn)的完善[J];證據(jù)科學(xué);2011年06期

4 張德英;劉汝寬;張亞卓;;從浙江叔侄冤案反思偵查中的問題——兼談偵查人員的法律素質(zhì)[J];貴州警官職業(yè)學(xué)院學(xué)報;2013年06期

5 陳瑞華;;量刑程序中的證據(jù)規(guī)則[J];吉林大學(xué)社會科學(xué)學(xué)報;2011年01期

6 陳衛(wèi)東;李訓(xùn)虎;;分而治之:一種完善死刑案件證明標(biāo)準(zhǔn)的思路[J];人民檢察;2007年08期

7 張中;論刑事訴訟的證明標(biāo)準(zhǔn)[J];山東法學(xué);1999年06期

8 楊宇冠;;論死刑案件證明標(biāo)準(zhǔn)之完善——新《刑事訴訟法》實施問題思考[J];清華法學(xué);2012年03期

9 陳虎;;提高死刑案件證明標(biāo)準(zhǔn) 一個似是而非的命題[J];中外法學(xué);2010年03期

10 樊崇義;客觀真實管見——兼論刑事訴訟證明標(biāo)準(zhǔn)[J];中國法學(xué);2000年01期

，

本文編號：2492998