本文選題：人權保障　切入點：程序正義　出處：《華中師范大學》2014年碩士論文

【摘要】：非法證據(jù)排除規(guī)則適用程序是非法證據(jù)排除規(guī)則的重要內容,著眼于規(guī)則的有效運行。在最高人民法院、最高人民檢察院、公安部、國家安全部和司法部五部委聯(lián)合發(fā)布《關于辦理刑事案件排除非法證據(jù)若干問題的規(guī)定》(以下簡稱《規(guī)定》)之前,國內大部分學術成果都集中對非法證據(jù)規(guī)則中言詞證據(jù)與實物證據(jù)進行區(qū)分對待、如何確定排除規(guī)則的適用范圍、非法證據(jù)排除確定的價值追求等理論的探索上,《規(guī)定》出臺以后,我國學者對非法證據(jù)排除程序產生了極大的興趣,規(guī)則的程序設計受到前所未有的重視。2012年3月14日《中華人民共和國刑事訴訟法》(以下簡稱《刑事訴訟法》)對我國刑事非法證據(jù)排除規(guī)則的適用程序做出了調整,但仍然存在規(guī)定較為原則、缺乏可操作性等問題。適用程序的設置必然影響非法證據(jù)的排除效果,只有通過設置切實完備的操作程序,才能真正實現(xiàn)對非法證據(jù)的過濾,避免庭審階段違法收集的證據(jù)對相關權利人造成二次傷害,因為,違反法定程序或者采用違反規(guī)定的方式收集證據(jù)的行為本身就是對超越權力的界限和對犯罪嫌疑人、被告人權利的侵害。完善非法證據(jù)排除規(guī)則適用程序具有重要的現(xiàn)實意義,尤其在追求文明法治的社會大背景下,人權保障的呼聲不斷高漲,非法證據(jù)排除規(guī)則適用程序更應充分體現(xiàn)其確保程序正義和實現(xiàn)人權保障的價值。 本文共分為四個部分,分別是非法證據(jù)排除規(guī)則適用程序理論分析、比較法視野下的非法證據(jù)排除程序、我國非法證據(jù)排除程序的現(xiàn)狀及反思和我國非法證據(jù)排除規(guī)則適用程序的重構。第一部分是非法證據(jù)排除規(guī)則適用程序的理論分析,從程序的價值層面進行了歸納與分析,提出了非法證據(jù)排除程序凸顯的幾種價值；第二部分主要介紹的是兩大法系主要國家的非法證據(jù)排除程序制度,進行了比較分析,從啟動程序的主體、裁判主體、審查時間、雙方證明責任以及處理結果等方面進行了對比,希望通過比較考察,借鑒國外先進的立法例,為完善我國的非法證據(jù)排除程序提供了路徑選擇；第三部分是我國非法證據(jù)排除程序制度的立法狀況,發(fā)現(xiàn)我國非法證據(jù)排除程序制度存在的弊病,找出問題存在的原因；第四部分我國刑事訴訟非法證據(jù)排除規(guī)則適用程序之完善,針對我國非法證據(jù)排除程序存在的問題,借鑒國外的優(yōu)秀立法經驗,從啟動主體、審查主體、審理方式及期間等及各方面,提出重構我國非法證據(jù)排除規(guī)則適用程序的一些思路。
[Abstract]:The procedure for the application of illegal evidence exclusion rules is an important part of the illegal evidence exclusion rules, focusing on the effective operation of the rules. In the Supreme people's Court, the Supreme people's Procuratorate, the Ministry of Public Security, Before the Ministry of National Security and the Ministry of Justice jointly issued the regulations on the handling of certain questions concerning the exclusion of illegal evidence in Criminal cases (hereinafter referred to as "regulations"), Most of the domestic academic achievements focus on the distinction between verbal evidence and physical evidence in the rules of illegal evidence, and how to determine the scope of application of the exclusion rules. In the exploration of the theory of the value pursuit of the determination of the exclusion of illegal evidence, after the promulgation of the regulations, Chinese scholars have had a great interest in the procedure of excluding illegal evidence. The procedural design of the rules has received unprecedented attention. On March 14, 2012, the Criminal procedure Law of the people's Republic of China (hereinafter referred to as the "Criminal procedure Law") has adjusted the procedure for the application of the rules of exclusion of criminal illegal evidence in China. However, there are still some problems, such as the principle of stipulation and the lack of maneuverability. The setting of applicable procedure will inevitably affect the exclusion effect of illegal evidence. Only by setting up practical and complete operation procedure can the filtering of illegal evidence be realized. To avoid the illegal collection of evidence at the trial stage causing secondary harm to the relevant right holder, because the act of collecting evidence in violation of legal procedures or by way of violation of regulations is in itself a violation of the limits of power and to a criminal suspect, The infringement of the defendant's rights and the improvement of the procedure for the application of the rule of exclusion of illegal evidence are of great practical significance, especially in the context of the pursuit of civilized rule of law, the voice of human rights protection is constantly rising. The application procedure of illegal evidence exclusion rule should fully embody its value of ensuring procedural justice and realizing human rights guarantee. This paper is divided into four parts: the theoretical analysis of the applicable procedure of the rule of exclusion of illegal evidence, the procedure of excluding illegal evidence from the perspective of comparative law, The present situation and reflection of the illegal evidence exclusion procedure in China and the reconstruction of the applicable procedure of the illegal evidence exclusion rule in our country. The first part is the theoretical analysis of the applicable procedure of the illegal evidence exclusion rule, which is summarized and analyzed from the value level of the procedure. The second part mainly introduces the system of illegal evidence exclusion procedure in the main countries of the two legal systems, and makes a comparative analysis, from the subject of starting procedure, the main body of the adjudication, the time of examination, the second part mainly introduces the system of the exclusionary procedure of illegal evidence in the main countries of the two major legal systems. The two sides of the burden of proof and the outcome of the comparison, hope through comparative investigation, learn from foreign advanced legislation, for the improvement of illegal evidence exclusion procedures provide a path choice; The third part is the legislative situation of the system of exclusionary procedure of illegal evidence in our country, find out the defects of the system of exclusionary procedure of illegal evidence in our country, and find out the reason of the problem. The fourth part is the perfection of the applicable procedure of the rule of exclusion of illegal evidence in criminal procedure in our country, aiming at the problems existing in the procedure of excluding illegal evidence in our country, drawing lessons from the excellent legislative experience of foreign countries, starting the subject and examining the subject. This paper puts forward some ideas on how to reconstruct the applicable procedure of illegal evidence exclusion rules in China.
【學位授予單位】：華中師范大學
【學位級別】：碩士
【學位授予年份】：2014
【分類號】：D925.2

【參考文獻】

相關期刊論文 前10條

1 楊宇冠;;非法證據(jù)排除規(guī)則及其在中國確立問題研究[J];比較法研究;2010年03期

2 陸而啟;;從紙上談兵到水滴石穿——非法口供排除程序的構造反思[J];證據(jù)科學;2012年02期

3 樊崇義;;只有程序公正,才能實現(xiàn)實體公正——學習“兩高三部”頒布的“兩個規(guī)定”[J];法學雜志;2010年07期

4 邊慧亮;;中外非法證據(jù)排除程序比較研究[J];西部法學評論;2012年01期

5 陳衛(wèi)東;程雷;孫皓;陳巖;;“兩個證據(jù)規(guī)定”實施情況調研報告——側重于三項規(guī)定的研究[J];證據(jù)科學;2012年01期

6 宋英輝;葉衍艷;;我國審判階段非法證據(jù)排除啟動程序問題研究——基于《刑事訴訟法》及相關司法解釋的分析[J];法學雜志;2013年09期

7 李倩;;德國刑事證據(jù)禁止理論問題研究[J];中外法學;2008年01期

8 吳丹紅;;非法證據(jù)排除規(guī)則的實證研究——以法院處理刑訊逼供辯護為例[J];現(xiàn)代法學;2006年05期

9 汪建成,楊雄;比較法視野下的刑事庭前審查程序之改造[J];中國刑事法雜志;2002年06期

10 黃維智;;非法證據(jù)排除規(guī)則價值論綱[J];中國刑事法雜志;2004年06期

，

本文編號：1662442