本文關(guān)鍵詞：論庭審實質(zhì)化實現(xiàn)路徑　出處：《吉林大學》2017年碩士論文　論文類型：學位論文

  更多相關(guān)文章： 審判中心主義 庭審實質(zhì)化 證據(jù)裁判原則

【摘要】：十八屆四中全會提出"推進以審判為中心的訴訟制度改革",堅持庭審應當在刑事訴訟中起到?jīng)Q定性的作用,對于被告人的定罪量刑問題都應當在庭審中解決,偵查、提起公訴等審前程序應當符合庭審的要求。受公檢法三機關(guān)之間"分工負責、互相配合、互相制約"原則的影響,我國刑事訴訟現(xiàn)實中"公檢法三機關(guān)之間"配合過多、制約不足"呈現(xiàn)出以偵查為中心"流水線"的訴訟模式,"公安是做飯的、檢察機關(guān)是端飯的、法院是吃飯的"等公安綁架法院的現(xiàn)象時有發(fā)生。"以審判為中心"是針對"偵查中心主義"提出的具有理論與實踐雙重意義的命題。而庭審實質(zhì)化是審判中心主義的題中之意。庭審實質(zhì)化是針對目前我國庭審虛化的現(xiàn)狀提出的要求。受偵查中心主義的影響,在目前很多的司法審判中,法官對于案件事實的認定主要是通過檢察機關(guān)移送的案卷筆錄,證人、鑒定人幾乎不出庭。對于很多案件法官不是根據(jù)自己的心證做出判斷,而是通過上級主管院長或者庭長的行政化審批活動完成。無論是案卷筆錄中心主義亦或是行政化的審批方式都不具備庭審應有的控辯兩造對抗、法官居中裁判的等腰三角形構(gòu)造,都違反了司法應有的審判規(guī)律,都破壞了庭審應當具備的公正程序以及證據(jù)規(guī)則。通過庭審實質(zhì)化推進審判方式的變革,從而完善司法管理體制以及司法權(quán)力運行機制十分必要。針對目前突出的庭審形式化的問題,根本原因在于案卷筆錄中心主義以及庭審證明過程的形式化,沒有貫徹證據(jù)裁判原則。受案件筆錄中心主義的影響,法官的心證多數(shù)不是依據(jù)庭審證明過程而是依靠庭外閱讀卷宗形成的,主要表現(xiàn)在以下幾個方面:首先,沒有嚴格控制證據(jù)的證據(jù)能力,非法證據(jù)排除規(guī)則流于形式。在庭審中法官對于證人證言以及鑒定意見等推定其具有天然的可采性對于證據(jù)的合法性幾乎不進行審查,"帶病"證據(jù)、瑕疵證據(jù)可以暢通無阻的進入法庭,缺乏對于證據(jù)能力的控制長此以往符合邏輯經(jīng)驗和認識規(guī)律的嚴格證明的證明觀很難建立起來。其次,庭審證明過程虛化。審判一個重要特點是親歷性,證人、鑒定人出庭保障法官可以直接接觸證據(jù),而在目前很多庭審過程中證人、鑒定人不出庭幾乎成了我國司法實踐中的常態(tài),出庭反而成了例外。在這種背景下被追訴方無法展開有效質(zhì)證,不僅導致一審法院開庭審理過程走過場而且造成現(xiàn)代刑事證據(jù)規(guī)則難以建立和實施。最后,證明標準虛置。由于前述對于證據(jù)能力的不審查、證明過程的形式化使得我國法律確立的"案件事實清楚,證據(jù)確實、充分,排除合理懷疑"的證明標準無法實現(xiàn),法官無法乃至不敢基于自己心證作出疑罪從無的判決。貫徹證據(jù)裁判原則,實現(xiàn)庭審實質(zhì)化應當完善以下幾個方面:首先,規(guī)范證據(jù)能力與證明力,完善證據(jù)規(guī)則體系。在我國立法過程中對于證據(jù)偏重于對證據(jù)的證明力的規(guī)范而對于證據(jù)的證據(jù)能力缺乏應有的重視。非法證據(jù)排除規(guī)則在實施的過程中存在問題,由此造成的后果便是不具備證據(jù)能力的證據(jù)進入法庭。所以法官在庭審過程中應當加強對于證據(jù)的合法性的審查,對于偵查機關(guān)出具的在本質(zhì)上屬于傳聞證據(jù)的證據(jù)應當要求證人、鑒定人等出庭接受法庭調(diào)查保證證據(jù)的證據(jù)能力。面對證人、鑒定人等不出庭無法保障辯方的質(zhì)證權(quán)的情況,立法上應當對于證人證言的證據(jù)能力進行相應的限制。法庭審判應當是控辯裁三方等腰三角形的構(gòu)造,缺少任何一方的庭審都是不完整。而被告人由于身陷囹圄以及專業(yè)知識等方面的限制無法與控方展開平等對抗,因而辯護律師的作用更加重要,加強法律援助辯護,促進控辯平等對抗,法官在全面了解案件證據(jù)與事實的基礎(chǔ)上形成內(nèi)心確信。其次,充實證據(jù)的調(diào)查程序,完善舉證、質(zhì)證以及認證過程。庭審虛化的重要表現(xiàn)是證明過程的形式化,庭審中證據(jù)調(diào)查過程粗糙等問題愈發(fā)突出,因而加強法庭調(diào)查過程,控辯雙方對證據(jù)的證據(jù)能力以及證明力展開充分辯論,保障法官心證形成于庭審對事實證據(jù)的認定而不是庭后的閱卷活動。最后,嚴格把握證明標準,切實排除合理懷疑。2012年《刑事訴訟法》在"案件事實清楚,證據(jù)確實、充分"的基礎(chǔ)上引入了"排除合理懷疑"的表述,要求審判人員不僅僅應當滿足于案件表面證據(jù)之間的相互印證更要進行內(nèi)心確信,對自己進行追問是否基于自己的審判經(jīng)驗和邏輯準則形成內(nèi)心確信。合理把握證明標準主客觀之間的關(guān)系,面對有限的司法資源對于無法排除的合理懷疑,審判人員應當作出疑罪從無的判決,從而真正實現(xiàn)庭審懲罰犯罪、保障人權(quán)的目的。
[Abstract]:In the fourth Plenary Session of the 18th CPC Central Committee proposed to promote the trial centered litigation system reform, adhere to the "trial should play a decisive role in the criminal procedure, the defendant's conviction and sentencing issues should be resolved in the trial, investigation, prosecution and other procedures before trial shall be filed with the court." by the three public security organs responsible for the division of labor and cooperate with each other, mutual restraint "principle of criminal procedure in reality" between the three public security organs with too many control problems, "which shows the investigation center line" litigation mode, "public security is cooking, the procuratorial organ is the end of the meal, the court is the court for" kidnapping of public security such phenomena have occurred. "The trial centered" to "Investigation Centered" has the theoretical and practical significance of the proposition. But the essence of the trial is a trial centered in the meaning of the title trial. The essence is put forward according to the present situation of the virtual trial. Affected by the investigation center, at present a lot of judicial trial, the judge found that the facts of the case is mainly through the procuratorial organ of the court records, witnesses, appraisers almost does not appear. In many cases the judge not according to their own heart certificate of judgment, but completed by the president or the president of the superior administrative examination and approval activities. Whether filesrecord centralism or administrative approval mode does not have the trial due the two isosceles triangle structure against the impartial judges, in violation of the rules of judicial trial, the trial shall destroy the fair procedures and rules of evidence. Promote the trial reform through the essence of the trial, in order to improve the management system of justice and judicial power operation machine System is very necessary. In view of the current outstanding trial formal problems, the fundamental reason is that filesrecord centralism and the trial proof form, does not implement the principle of evidence referee. Affected by the case record centralism, most of the judge not according to trial proof but on the court read file form, mainly in the following aspects: first, the ability of evidence there is no strict control of evidence, the exclusionary rule of illegal evidence of a mere formality. The trial judge for the testimony of witnesses and expert opinions and other presumed natural admissibility for the legality of the evidence almost without review, "sick" evidence of defective evidence can smoothly enter the court. For lack of evidence ability, logical control if things go on like this experience and understanding of the law strictly proved that view is difficult to set up. Secondly, the court The process of grammaticalization. The trial is an important feature of trial experience, witnesses, expert witnesses judges can directly contact the evidence, and in many of the current trial process in the witness, appraiser does not appear almost become the norm in the judicial practice of our country, but to be the exception. In this context the accused party unable to launch effective cross examination, not only led to a trial court hearing process as a mere formality but also caused the modern rules of criminal evidence is difficult to establish and implement. Finally, the standard of proof for the empty set. Due to the aforementioned evidence ability not to review the process of proving the form of the law of our country established "the case facts are clear, the evidence is reliable and sufficient. The reasonable doubt standard" can not be achieved, the judge can not and dare not own heart card based on the suspected crime from judgment. Carry out the principle of evidentiary adjudication, realize the essence of the trial should be improved The following aspects: first, the standard of evidence ability and the certificate strength, improve the evidence system. In the process of China's legislation on the evidence of proof standard for the competence of evidence the lack of due attention. Illegal evidence exclusion problems in the process of implementing rules, the result is not have the evidence ability evidence into court. So the judge should strengthen the legality of evidence review during the trial, the investigation authorities issued to hearsay evidence in essence of evidence should be required to witness, appraiser to appear in court to accept the court investigation to ensure the competence of evidence. In the face of witnesses, expert witnesses do not appear in court to to protect the rights of confrontation with the defense situation, legislation should be appropriate restrictions on capacity of evidence witness testimony. The court trial should be cut the three party three angle isosceles The shape of the structure, the lack of any party to the trial is not complete. The defendant due to jail and the professional knowledge and other aspects of the limitation and the expansion of equal confrontation, the more important the role of lawyers and legal aid, strengthen defense, promote equal adversary, the judge in the heart that form the basis of a comprehensive understanding of evidence and facts the case. Secondly, enrich the investigation procedure, the improvement of the evidence burden of proof, cross examination and authentication process. An important trial virtual is the process of proving the formal trial evidence in the investigation process, the roughness is more and more prominent, thus strengthening the court investigation process, both sides of the ability to evidence and probative full debate judges, evidence form of trial of fact evidence rather than court marking activities. Finally, strictly grasp the standard of proof, and exclude reasonable doubt.2 012 years of "Criminal Procedure Law" in the "facts are clear, the evidence is sufficient," introduced "beyond reasonable doubt" expressions, confirm each other for trial personnel should not only be satisfied with the case evidence should be carried on the surface of the inner conviction, for themselves to ask whether their trial experience and logic based on the principle of convinced. Reasonable understanding of the standard of proof of concept between the subject and object relations, in the face of limited judicial resources for reasonable doubt cannot be ruled out, the judges shall make a guilty verdict, so as to realize the punishment of crime, the protection of human rights.

【學位授予單位】：吉林大學
【學位級別】：碩士
【學位授予年份】：2017
【分類號】：D925.2

【相似文獻】

相關(guān)期刊論文 前10條

1 翟東堂,郭偉平;證據(jù)能力和證據(jù)證明力的關(guān)系初探[J];商丘師范學院學報;2001年03期

2 吳謖瑾;;刑事物證證據(jù)能力探析[J];公安學刊(浙江警察學院學報);2012年02期

3 孔祥承;;附帶監(jiān)聽資料證據(jù)能力研究[J];江西警察學院學報;2014年03期

4 孟德平;論“偷拍偷錄”采訪資料的證據(jù)能力[J];律師世界;2001年05期

5 肖建國;證據(jù)能力比較研究[J];中國刑事法雜志;2001年06期

6 黃維智;;鑒定證據(jù)的證據(jù)能力研究[J];東岳論叢;2005年06期

7 王紹紅;楊克武;;論庭前證供的證據(jù)能力[J];法制與社會;2008年36期

8 陳衛(wèi)東;付磊;;我國證據(jù)能力制度的反思與完善[J];證據(jù)科學;2008年01期

9 奚瑋;余茂玉;;論證據(jù)能力意義上的關(guān)聯(lián)性——以刑事訴訟為視角的研究[J];社會科學家;2008年04期

10 陳衛(wèi)東;付磊;;證據(jù)能力:動態(tài)地承載著價值選擇[J];法制資訊;2008年09期

相關(guān)會議論文 前3條

1 李云峰;熊文勝;仲愛華;;試論電子文件的法律證據(jù)能力[A];中國檔案學會第六次全國檔案學術(shù)討論會論文集[C];2002年

2 付璇;;刑事書面證言證據(jù)能力比較考察[A];當代法學論壇（2008年第4輯）[C];2008年

3 尹偉民;;國際民事訴訟中證據(jù)能力問題研究[A];遼寧省哲學社會科學獲獎成果匯編[2007-2008年度][C];2010年

相關(guān)重要報紙文章 前6條

1 于鐵林 王丹峰 于勇;證據(jù)的價值取決于證據(jù)能力[N];檢察日報;2005年

2 楊亞民;設(shè)置質(zhì)證規(guī)則要關(guān)注五大要素[N];檢察日報;2007年

3 陶家祥;秘密監(jiān)聽證據(jù)能力的認定[N];江蘇經(jīng)濟報;2012年

4 肖建國 北京科技大學法律系副教授、法學博士;英美證據(jù)法的兩點啟示[N];人民法院報;2001年

5 北京凱亞律師事務所律師 晉力;單位“作證”證據(jù)能力亟待澄清[N];法制日報;2007年

6 清華大學法學院 王一超;從《錯案》看應當如何避免錯案[N];人民法院報;2013年

相關(guān)博士學位論文 前1條

1 紀格非;論證據(jù)能力——以民事訴訟為視角的研究[D];中國政法大學;2003年

相關(guān)碩士學位論文 前10條

1 張燁鵬;刑事訴訟初查制度研究[D];山東大學;2015年

2 張莉;民事訴訟中電子數(shù)據(jù)的認證規(guī)則研究[D];華東政法大學;2016年

3 唐微;初一、二年級學生生物學科應用科學證據(jù)能力的調(diào)查研究[D];蘇州大學;2016年

4 胡芮嘉;電子數(shù)據(jù)證據(jù)能力與證明力問題研究[D];大連海事大學;2016年

5 于海萍;論庭審實質(zhì)化實現(xiàn)路徑[D];吉林大學;2017年

6 韋雯曄;論我國證據(jù)能力審查制度之構(gòu)建[D];上海交通大學;2009年

7 周培翔;私人日記的證據(jù)能力問題研究[D];貴州民族大學;2012年

8 陳曉蔚;刑事訴訟中的證據(jù)能力研究[D];太原科技大學;2009年

9 李丹;證據(jù)能力中的關(guān)聯(lián)性問題研究[D];復旦大學;2010年

10 張楠;論秘密錄音的證據(jù)能力[D];南京師范大學;2011年

，

本文編號：1410294