本文選題：人身安全保護(hù)令　切入點：證明責(zé)任　出處：《河南師范大學(xué)》2017年碩士論文

【摘要】：家庭暴力是國際上一個熱點問題,一直以來我國都存在家庭暴力問題,而且近幾年來,人們的維權(quán)意識高漲,自我保護(hù)能力提高,家庭暴力日益浮出水面,經(jīng)過調(diào)查研究發(fā)現(xiàn)其他國家用人身安全保護(hù)令來防治家庭暴力。人身安全保護(hù)令就是指在受害者遭受家庭暴力或者是有面臨家庭暴力的危險,可以向法院申請保護(hù),法院經(jīng)過審理作出裁定。雖然為了指導(dǎo)司法實踐,2008年公布了《涉及家庭暴力婚姻案件審理指南》(以下簡稱《審理指南》)。在《審理指南》中第一次對于人身安全保護(hù)裁定的申請條件、簽發(fā)條件等做出了規(guī)定,為簽發(fā)人身安全保護(hù)裁定提供了一定的參考,但是受該指南性質(zhì)所限,法官不能直接援引指南作為判決或裁定的依據(jù)。2012年修訂的《中華人民共和國民事訴訟法》(以下簡稱《民事訴訟法》)首次規(guī)定了行為保全,人身安全保護(hù)令被看成是一種行為保全,在立法上被肯定。但是由于新修訂的《民事訴訟法》對于行為保全的規(guī)定過于原則,在司法實踐上并不能起到良好的指導(dǎo)作用。為了完善我國的家庭暴力防治法律體系,全國人民代表大會常務(wù)委員會表決通過了《中華人民共和國反家庭暴力法》(以下簡稱《反家庭暴力法》),該法對人身安全保護(hù)令進(jìn)行了專章規(guī)定,將人身安全保護(hù)令作為一個獨立程序,不再依附于婚姻家庭案件的訴訟程序,這可謂是《反家庭暴力法》立法之進(jìn)步,同時明確規(guī)定了人身安全保護(hù)令的申請人范圍、申請形式、管轄法院、內(nèi)容,以及執(zhí)行方式與法律責(zé)任�？v觀人身安全保護(hù)令在司法適用中的情況可以發(fā)現(xiàn),人身安全保護(hù)令的法律規(guī)定還存在諸多缺陷,當(dāng)有證據(jù)表明家庭暴力事實存在時,受害者因為某種原因撤回了人身安全保護(hù)令的申請,想給予施暴者一次改正的機(jī)會,想盡力維護(hù)婚姻關(guān)系的存續(xù),但是施暴者并未認(rèn)識到錯誤,那么針對施暴者的家庭暴力行為,受害者是否還可以再次提出人身安全保護(hù)令的申請。另外立法并未對人身安全保護(hù)令的證明規(guī)則進(jìn)行詳細(xì)的規(guī)定,受害者一般都是弱勢群體,由于證據(jù)意識淡薄或者是能力有限而無法擁有充足的證據(jù),而針對人身安全保護(hù)令的申請,法律規(guī)定的證明標(biāo)準(zhǔn)與證明責(zé)任對受害者來說又過于嚴(yán)苛,受害者若沒有充足的證據(jù)去證明家庭暴力事實,法院無法作出人身安全保護(hù)令的裁定,其將無法得到人身安全保護(hù)令的保護(hù)。防治家庭暴力的人身安全保護(hù)令制度存在缺陷,有問題就去解決問題,本文的目的就是為了針對問題提出建議,文章通過對我國現(xiàn)有的有關(guān)人身安全保護(hù)令的法律規(guī)定和司法實踐存在的不足之處進(jìn)行說明,查找國外關(guān)于人身安全保護(hù)令中值得借鑒的立法規(guī)定和司法實踐,完善我國的人身安全保護(hù)令。筆者建議針對同一家庭暴力行為,受害者撤回申請后可以再次提出申請;對于證明規(guī)則部分,筆者建議適用舉證責(zé)任倒置原則,采用微弱優(yōu)勢證明標(biāo)準(zhǔn)。并且筆者提倡將品格證據(jù)作為補強證據(jù)的一種,以此來改善受害者與施暴者之間的能力不均等的情況,平衡雙方的能力。
[Abstract]:Family violence is a significant issue in the world, has been in China since there are problems of domestic violence, and in recent years, rising awareness of people's rights, improve the ability to protect themselves, family violence has surfaced, after investigation found that other countries with personal safety protection order to prevent domestic violence. Personal safety protection that means victims of family violence or are in danger of domestic violence, can apply for protection to the court, after hearing the court ruling. In order to guide the judicial practice, published in 2008 "domestic violence involving marriage case Guide (hereinafter referred to as the" trial guidelines > >). < > in the first trial in the guide for personal safety protection order the conditions for issuing conditions make the rules, provide some reference for the issue of personal safety protection order, but due to the limited nature of the guide, The judge cannot directly invoke the People's Republic of China Civil Procedure Law > as a guide to the judgments or decisions on the basis of.2012 amendment "(hereinafter referred to as the" Civil Procedure Law ") for the first time the provisions of the act preservation, personal safety protection order has been regarded as a kind of act preservation, was affirmed in the legislation. But because of the civil litigation law" revised "provisions of the act preservation principle too, and can not play a good guidance in the judicial practice. In order to improve the domestic violence prevention law system in our country, the Standing Committee of the National People's Congress voted through the" People's Republic of China anti domestic violence law "(hereinafter referred to as the" anti family violence law >), to protect the personal safety of the of people make the special regulations, the personal safety protection order as a separate program, no longer dependent on marriage and family proceedings, which can be described as "anti family violence law The legislative progress, also defined the scope of the applicant, the personal safety protection order of the application form, under the jurisdiction of the court, the content and mode of execution and legal liability. To protect the personal safety throughout the people make in judicial application can be found, the law of personal safety protection order, there are many defects, when there is evidence family violence exists that the victim for some reason to withdraw the application of personal safety protection order, the perpetrators want to give an opportunity to correct, try to maintain the marital relationship continues to exist, but the perpetrators did not recognize the error, then the perpetrators of domestic violence, whether the victim can also apply them again safety protection order. In addition to that legislation does not rule personal safety protection order detailed provisions, the victims are generally vulnerable groups, because the evidence consciousness or Is limited and can not have sufficient evidence, and to apply for personal safety protection order, the law standard of proof and the burden of proof for the victims and the victims are too severe, if there is no sufficient evidence to prove the facts of family violence, the court ruled to personal safety protection order, the people will not be protected personal safety protection order. The family violence prevention and control of personal safety protection order system defects, problem solving problem, the purpose of this paper is to put forward suggestions, the article illustrate the deficiencies of laws and regulations to protect the personal safety of our existing order and judicial practice, to find foreign about personal safety protection legislation reference order and judicial practice, improve the safety protection in our country. The author suggests that people make the same family violence, The victim after the withdrawal of the application can apply again; for rules of proof part, the author suggests the principles for burden of proof, the standard of proof. The author also narrowly advocates the character evidence as a corroborative evidence, so as to improve the ability between victims and perpetrators of the unequal situation, balance the ability of both sides.

【學(xué)位授予單位】：河南師范大學(xué)
【學(xué)位級別】：碩士
【學(xué)位授予年份】：2017
【分類號】：D923.9

【參考文獻(xiàn)】

相關(guān)期刊論文 前10條

1 楊曉林;;完善家庭暴力的認(rèn)定及舉證責(zé)任的承擔(dān)——簡評《反家庭暴力法》第二十條[J];中國律師;2016年04期

2 朱亭燁;;以農(nóng)村為例探討家庭暴力的起因與防控舉措[J];現(xiàn)代交際;2016年08期

3 朱佳;;家庭暴力不再是“家務(wù)事”[J];法制與社會;2016年09期

4 陳思;;家庭暴力取證困難問題及解決對策[J];法制博覽;2015年08期

5 周翠;;從事實推定走向表見證明[J];現(xiàn)代法學(xué);2014年06期

6 楊躍;蔡仲維;;人身安全保護(hù)裁定在反家庭暴力中的應(yīng)用與完善[J];湖北警官學(xué)院學(xué)報;2014年04期

7 呂春娟;;家庭暴力的防治——以國家公權(quán)力的介入為視角[J];國家行政學(xué)院學(xué)報;2011年04期

8 馮毅;;公安機(jī)關(guān)干預(yù)家庭暴力的現(xiàn)狀、制約因素與對策研究[J];法制與社會;2011年23期

9 張穎慧;徐祥全;徐春卿;;論家庭暴力取證[J];法制與社會;2011年13期

10 林晶;郭麗紅;;論家庭暴力法律事實的訴訟證明[J];山西師大學(xué)報(社會科學(xué)版);2011年02期

相關(guān)博士學(xué)位論文 前1條

1 羅杰;家庭暴力立法與實踐研究[D];西南政法大學(xué);2012年

相關(guān)碩士學(xué)位論文 前7條

1 夏凡;《反家庭暴力法》中的救濟(jì)機(jī)制研究[D];安徽大學(xué);2016年

2 孫曉飛;家庭暴力防治中的人身安全保護(hù)令制度研究[D];河北經(jīng)貿(mào)大學(xué);2016年

3 廖雪云;家庭暴力犯罪證據(jù)規(guī)則問題研究[D];山東大學(xué);2015年

4 羅培棟;家暴防治中的人身保護(hù)令研究[D];華中師范大學(xué);2013年

5 侯菡;防治家庭暴力之民事保護(hù)令制度研究[D];西南政法大學(xué);2012年

6 羅魏斌;我國民事保護(hù)令程序的前瞻性研究[D];湘潭大學(xué);2010年

7 莫良豐;民事保護(hù)令—家庭暴力受害人的事前法律救濟(jì)[D];湘潭大學(xué);2008年

，

本文編號：1671711