本文關(guān)鍵詞：中國(guó)非法證據(jù)排除規(guī)則構(gòu)建研究　出處：《吉林大學(xué)》2013年博士論文　論文類型：學(xué)位論文

  更多相關(guān)文章： 非法證據(jù) 排除 構(gòu)建

【摘要】：近年來，，有關(guān)非法證據(jù)排除規(guī)則的構(gòu)建問題越來越引起立法者和學(xué)者們的普遍關(guān)注。是否確立非法證據(jù)排除規(guī)則，如何確立，反映一個(gè)國(guó)家司法民主化、文明化的程度，在一定意義上反映出一個(gè)國(guó)家對(duì)于人權(quán)保障的基本態(tài)度。但是，并不是說，確立了非法證據(jù)排除規(guī)則，確立的范圍越寬泛，就反映該國(guó)的司法民主、文明程度越高，人權(quán)保障愈加完善。 在對(duì)非法證據(jù)排除規(guī)則的理論基礎(chǔ)、歷史沿革和各國(guó)現(xiàn)狀進(jìn)行詳盡分析的基礎(chǔ)上，發(fā)展和完善非法證據(jù)排除規(guī)則的操作就十分必要了。本文運(yùn)用比較研究方法、實(shí)證研究方法，結(jié)合中國(guó)現(xiàn)實(shí)國(guó)情，提出相應(yīng)解決方案。 本文首先討論了非法證據(jù)排除規(guī)則的概念解析、歷史回顧。提出非法證據(jù)排除規(guī)則中的“非法”中的法應(yīng)僅指違反2012年《中華人民共和國(guó)刑事訴訟法》關(guān)于證據(jù)收集方式的規(guī)定和以其為依據(jù)的相關(guān)司法解釋；僅應(yīng)將非法言辭證據(jù)一律自動(dòng)排除；對(duì)非法實(shí)物證據(jù)（包括書證）既不能脫離實(shí)際，也不能因循保守，過于遷就現(xiàn)實(shí)，而應(yīng)適用訴訟均衡論，采取原則視為應(yīng)排除的“非法證據(jù)”的態(tài)度；至于“毒樹之果”，除以嚴(yán)重侵犯犯罪嫌疑人、被告人和證人人身權(quán)利取得的供述和證言為線索搜取的證據(jù)外，一般不宜視為應(yīng)排除的“非法證據(jù)”。非法證據(jù)排除規(guī)則及其理論基礎(chǔ)的發(fā)展歷史告誡我們，排除規(guī)則及其理論基礎(chǔ)并不是一以貫之，一成不變的，而是隨著社會(huì)進(jìn)步的不同階段、民智開啟的不同水平、社會(huì)治安的不同狀態(tài)和理論發(fā)展的不同時(shí)期而不斷發(fā)展的。 是否建立可能排除真實(shí)證據(jù)的非法證據(jù)排除規(guī)則，在多大范圍上排除非法證據(jù)，這些問題的回答，實(shí)際上均與一個(gè)判斷有關(guān)，即社會(huì)從排除非法手段索取的證據(jù)中所取得的利益或者所獲得的價(jià)值是否超過了失去發(fā)現(xiàn)嫌疑人有罪或無罪的事實(shí)真相能力所付出的代價(jià)。我國(guó)的非法證據(jù)排除的理論基礎(chǔ)應(yīng)為保障人權(quán)理論、抑制違法理論和正當(dāng)程序理論。之所以將三種理論并列為非法證據(jù)排除的理論基礎(chǔ)，除因其內(nèi)容符合排除規(guī)則設(shè)立初衷，體現(xiàn)了排除規(guī)則主要內(nèi)容，代表了排除規(guī)則發(fā)展方向外，更因?yàn)槿?xiàng)規(guī)則的內(nèi)容互為補(bǔ)充，只有予以整合，才能適應(yīng)我國(guó)目前法制尚不健全，法律漏洞多多；人們法治意識(shí)不高，缺乏權(quán)利觀念；穩(wěn)定對(duì)社會(huì)發(fā)展意義關(guān)鍵的實(shí)際情況。 在第二章本文主要對(duì)比世界各國(guó)非法證據(jù)排除規(guī)則的規(guī)定。非法證據(jù)排除規(guī)則的建立，除受政治人權(quán)化、民主化的影響外，還受到各自國(guó)家刑事政策重點(diǎn)、傳統(tǒng)價(jià)值取向、法文化傳統(tǒng)、訴訟構(gòu)造、訴訟目的和社會(huì)治安水平等因素的制約。甚至考察一國(guó)的非法證據(jù)排除規(guī)則的建立發(fā)展歷史就可以簡(jiǎn)明的了解該國(guó)的人權(quán)發(fā)展水平、治安狀況等歷史背景。也正因?yàn)槭艿街T多制約，一般而言，非法證據(jù)排除規(guī)則是各國(guó)立法者和司法者綜合考慮多種因素后做出的符合本國(guó)實(shí)際的選擇。 在第三章本文主要介紹了我國(guó)現(xiàn)行法律、司法解釋中的非法證據(jù)排除規(guī)則，并探討了其中存在的問題。一是適用面過窄。主要針對(duì)非法言詞證據(jù)，兼及非法實(shí)物證據(jù)，對(duì)公安、檢察機(jī)關(guān)其他違反憲法關(guān)于人權(quán)保護(hù)和刑事訴訟法關(guān)于法定訴訟程序規(guī)定收集的證據(jù)，應(yīng)當(dāng)承擔(dān)何種法律后果，沒有明確規(guī)定，實(shí)際就是不予排除。二是對(duì)一些重要的偵查手段規(guī)定，尚付闕如。如獄內(nèi)偵查等。即便有規(guī)定的一些偵查措施，又因過于原則、籠統(tǒng)，內(nèi)容模糊，也缺乏可操作性。如對(duì)技術(shù)偵查措施的使用等。三是一些具體內(nèi)容規(guī)定模糊，缺乏操作性。如關(guān)于嚴(yán)禁威脅、欺騙取得證言的規(guī)定與實(shí)踐中任何國(guó)家都廣泛使用的偵查謀略如何劃分界限。2010年7月1日，兩高三部《非法證據(jù)排除規(guī)定》和《辦理死刑案件證據(jù)規(guī)定》生效實(shí)施。2013年1月1日，刑事訴訟法正式施行，但兩個(gè)規(guī)定和刑訴法的落實(shí)情況也不令人樂觀。 在第四章本文提出了非法證據(jù)排除規(guī)則的完善措施。完善規(guī)則應(yīng)遵循現(xiàn)實(shí)主義原則、兼顧原則和平衡原則。在重復(fù)自白是否排除問題上，提出對(duì)于偵查人員使用刑訊逼供或暴力取證手段獲得言詞證據(jù)之后，又通過正常程序訊問、詢問所獲得的言詞證據(jù)，即重復(fù)性言詞證據(jù)是否排除，關(guān)鍵不在于是否前后言詞證據(jù)是否內(nèi)容相同，也不在于前一口供是以實(shí)質(zhì)性違法或技術(shù)性違法的方式取得，而在于前后證據(jù)是否為不同偵查人員取得。只要更換了審訊、詢問小組（人員全部更換），無論之后的言詞證據(jù)是否與先前通過刑訊逼供、暴力取證得到的相同，其效力均不受影響；提出對(duì)通過以與刑訊逼供具有同質(zhì)性的隱性暴力手段取得的言詞證據(jù)應(yīng)以該自動(dòng)排除；提出對(duì)通過威脅、引誘、欺騙等方法獲得的言詞證據(jù)應(yīng)視情況而定，在法律容許范圍內(nèi)的可以采納，否則，應(yīng)予自動(dòng)排除；提出對(duì)于非法取得的實(shí)物證據(jù)應(yīng)當(dāng)自動(dòng)排除，只是對(duì)其中存在技術(shù)性瑕疵的部分可賦予法官裁量排除的權(quán)力；提出對(duì)“純粹的技術(shù)性違法行為”一般應(yīng)予采納，特殊情況在當(dāng)事人提出排除動(dòng)議時(shí)，由檢察官、法官裁量排除；提出對(duì)“毒樹之果”予以采納，僅在刑訊逼供和暴力取證獲得的言詞證據(jù)為線索取得“毒樹之果”的特殊情況下才予以排除；提出犯罪嫌疑人、被告人、證人和被害人均應(yīng)享有提出非法證據(jù)排除的權(quán)利。
[Abstract]:In recent years, the construction of the exclusionary rule of illegal evidence increasingly attracted widespread attention of legislators and scholars. Whether the establishment of exclusionary rules, how to establish, reflects a country's judicial democracy, civilized degree, in a sense reflects a country's basic attitude for the protection of human rights. However, is not to say that the establishment of illegal evidence exclusion rules, establish the scope is broad, it reflects the country's judicial democracy, the higher the degree of civilization, human rights protection is more perfect.
Based on the theory of the exclusionary rule of illegal evidence, based on detailed analysis of the history and national situation, the development and perfection of the exclusionary rule of illegal evidence is very necessary. This paper uses comparative research method, empirical research method, combining with the China reality, put forward the corresponding solutions.
This paper first discusses the concept, the exclusionary rule of illegal evidence review. The exclusionary rule of illegal evidence in the "illegal" in law only refers to the violation of the 2012 People's Republic of China Criminal Procedure Law > < on evidence collection regulations and the basis of the relevant judicial interpretation; only the illegal words evidence shall be automatically excluded; on illegal physical evidence (including documentary evidence) is not practical, not too conservative, adapt to the reality and should apply the litigation equilibrium theory, adopts the principle should be excluded as "illegal evidence" attitude; as for the "fruit of the poisonous tree", divided by a serious violation of criminal suspects, defendants and witnesses personal rights made confession and testimony for clues from the evidence, the general should not be regarded as "illegal evidence" should be excluded. The historical development of the exclusionary rule of illegal evidence and its theoretical basis. Tell us, the exclusionary rule and its theoretical basis is not immutable and frozen, but One principle runs through it all., with different stages of social development, different levels of wisdom to open, different state and theoretical development of social security and development.
Whether the illegal evidence established may exclude the true evidence exclusionary rule, the exclusion of illegal evidence in a large range, the answers to these questions are actually related to a judgment is made from the social exclusion of illegal means to obtain evidence of interest or the value obtained is more than the lost found pay suspects guilty or not guilty the truth about the ability of price. The theoretical basis of the exclusion of illegal evidence in our country should be for the protection of human rights theory, law theory and inhibition theory of due process. The reason why the three kinds of theory, theoretical basis for exclusion of illegal evidence, except for its content conforms to the rule set up the original intention, reflect the main content of exclusion rules, on behalf of the exclusion the rules of development direction, but also because the contents of the three rules complement each other, only to be integrated in order to adapt to China's current legal system is not perfect, many legal loopholes Many people are not aware of the rule of law, lack of right ideas, and the key to the significance of social development.
Provisions of the rule in the second chapter of this paper mainly compared the world of illegal evidence. The establishment of the exclusionary rule of illegal evidence, in addition to political rights, the effect of democratization, but also by their respective national criminal policy focus, traditional value orientation, the traditional legal culture, litigation structure, restriction factors and social security level of litigation purposes. Even on a country of illegal evidence exclusionary rule of the establishment and development of the history can be concise understanding of human rights development level of the country, the security situation and historical background. It is because it has many constraints, generally speaking, the exclusionary rule of evidence is made of various factors by national legislation and jurisdiction, after considering the line with their actual the choice.
In the third chapter, this paper mainly introduces the current law of our country, the judicial interpretation of the illegal evidence exclusion rules, and discusses the problems. One is to apply too narrow. Mainly for illegal evidence, and illegal physical evidence, the police, prosecutors and other violations of constitutional law on the protection of human rights and criminal procedure law the legal rules of procedure to collect evidence, shall bear the legal consequences, not clearly defined, is not excluded. Two is the provisions of some important means of investigation is Fu Queru. As the investigation. Even if there are some investigation measures and regulations, and because too principled, general, vague, but also the lack of operation. Such as measures of technical investigation of the use of some of the specific content is three. The provisions of the vague, lack of maneuverability. Such a threat to any country has prohibited, fraud provisions of the testimony and practice are widely How to divide the use of investigative strategies? In.2010 July 1st, the two senior three departments' illegal evidence exclusion rules and the evidence for death penalty cases became effective. In January 1st of July 1st, the criminal procedure law was formally implemented, but the implementation of the two provisions and the criminal procedure law is not optimistic.
In the fourth chapter of this paper puts forward the measures to improve the exclusionary rule of illegal evidence. Perfect rules should follow the principle of realism, taking into account the principle and balance principle. In the repeated confession whether to exclude the problem, put forward to the investigators using torture to extract confessions or means of evidence of violence testimonial evidence, and through the normal procedures of interrogation, ask the verbal evidence obtained the evidence that repetitive words is excluded, the key is not whether the evidence is the same content before and after the words, it is not a confession has been obtained by substantial illegal or technical illegal ways, but that the evidence is different before and after investigators. As long as the replacement of the interrogation, inquiry group (personnel all replaced). No matter whether the evidence after previously through the inquisition by torture, evidence of violence are the same, the effect is not influenced; put on by torture and Having obtained verbal evidence means the homogeneity of recessive violence should be the automatic elimination; put forward to lure by threats, verbal evidence cheating methods should be obtained depending on the situation, in the legal range can be accepted, otherwise, shall be automatically excluded; the physical evidence on the illegal shall be rejected automatically. But the existing technical defects of the part can give judges discretion to exclude authority; put on "technical violations" pure general should be adopted, in special circumstances the parties put forward out of motion, by the prosecutor, the judge discretion to exclude; put forward to adopt the "fruit of the poisonous tree", verbal evidence only in the inquisition by torture and evidence of violence as a clue to obtain "special fruit of the poisonous tree" is proposed to exclude; criminal suspects, defendants, witnesses and victims should be entitled to The right to exclude illegal evidence.

【學(xué)位授予單位】：吉林大學(xué)
【學(xué)位級(jí)別】：博士
【學(xué)位授予年份】：2013
【分類號(hào)】：D925.2

【引證文獻(xiàn)】

相關(guān)期刊論文 前1條

1 王葉紅;;論我國(guó)非法證據(jù)的證明效力[J];商;2014年02期

相關(guān)碩士學(xué)位論文 前1條

1 王濤;我國(guó)審查起訴階段的非法證據(jù)排除問題研究[D];吉林大學(xué);2013年

本文編號(hào)：1369881