본문 바로가기
KERD
논문KCI 등재

中國刑事證明標準立法的新發展及司法適用

On the latest legislation development and judicial application of criminal proof standards in China

0

조회

0

다운로드

0

인용

0

참고문헌

키워드

초록

中國刑事訴訟理論與實踐對“排除合理懷疑”證明標準的態度,從最初的拒絕到最後的接納,從死刑案件中的地方性試驗到國家性立法的一般化確認,經歷了一條曲折而漫長的法律移植道路。2012年中國≪刑事訴訟法≫再修改時,將“排除合理懷疑”引入刑事司法證明標準體系之中,以進一步明確“證據確實充分”證明標準的涵義並細化其適用條件,這是為克服證明標準客觀化所存在的缺陷而進行的一次立法努力,具有提供事實證明認識新路徑之證明方法價值。“排除合理懷疑”作為主觀化刑事證明標準,要真正融入中國刑事法律體系,實現人們對中國刑事證明標準的科學運作寄予的厚望,就中國現狀而言,還存在配套制度、訴訟規則和體系化建設的諸多問題和缺陷。首先,保障司法裁判者的獨立性,確保其在自由心證的基礎上所形成的合理懷疑不受他人的干涉,是 “合理懷疑”能否排除的重要前提;其次,在證據制度體系的視角下構建完善非法證據排除規則、傳聞證據排除規則以及交叉詢問制度等是“排除合理懷疑”標準運作的制度基礎;同時,加強法官心證公開,強化刑事裁判文書事實理由部分的分析說理,展現法官排除合理懷疑的分析思路,以提高法院裁判可接受性並防止法官擅斷,降低“排除合理懷疑”證明標準主觀化的負面影響。

Abstract

The attitude of the academics and practitioners of Chinese criminal justice toward “beyond a reasonable doubt” has undergone a long and winding law transplantation road, from initial rejection to final acceptation, from localization reform in the capital cases to general recognition in national legislation. In order to explicitly definite and specific the criminal proof standard of “unquestionable and sufficient evidences”, the latest revision of Chinese criminal procedure law introduced “beyond a reasonable doubt” doctrine into proof standard system. BARD standard is one kind of subjective proof standards, as a legislative effort to overcome the deficiency of the objective proof standards, which has the value of method of proof. To achieve the goal of law transplantation and reasonable operation of Chinese criminal proof standard,there are still many theoretical and practical matters in the system of criminal procedure rules should be taken into account as follows: First, judicial independence is an important premise for reasonable operation of BARD, which protect “reasonable doubt” is formed on the basis of discretional evaluation of evidence without others' interference. Second, rules of evidence, which form institutional basis for the judicial application of BARD, should be rebuild or perfected in the systematic perspective, such as the exclusionary rule of illegal evidence, hearsay rule and cross-examination system and so on. Furthermore, judges are required to open the process of decisions and the judgment should be made more detailed and reasonable argumentation, so as to enhance the acceptability of judicial decision and reduce the negative effects of BARD as a subjective proof standard.

참고문헌 (18)

  1. 王國樞, "刑事訴訟法學" (1998), 北京大學出版社
  2. 陳瑞華, "刑事證據法" (2012), 北京大學出版社
  3. 江澤民, "切實加強治安工作" (2006), 人民出版社
  4. 熊秋紅, "對刑事證明標準的思考", 法商研究, 1 (2003)
  5. 陳一雲, "證據學" (1992), 中國人民大學出版社
  6. 龍宗智, "我國刑事訴訟的證明標準", 法學研究, 6 (1996)
  7. 李訓虎, "“排除合理懷疑”的中國敘事", 法學家, 5 (2012)
  8. 張軍, "刑事證據規則理解和適用" (2010), 法律出版社
  9. 郎勝, "中國人民共和國刑事訴訟法修改與適用" (2012), 新華出版社
  10. 張中, "排除合理懷疑:刑事證明的新標準", 檢察日報, 5, ~ (2012)
  11. 龍宗智, "中國法語境中的“排除合理懷疑”", 中外法學, 6(6) (2012)
  12. 陳瑞華, "刑事證明標準中主客觀要素的關係", 中國法學, 3 (2014)
  13. 沈德詠, "中國刑事證據制度改革發展的路徑選擇", 清華法學, (5) (2011)
  14. 喬新生, "改革審委會制度不是徹底將其廢除", 法制日報, ~ (2013)
  15. 楊宇冠, "非法證據排除規則實施考察報告", 證據科學, 1 (2014)
  16. 石曉波, "排除合理懷疑的異域嬗變與本土啟示", 鄭州大學學報, 3 (2016)
  17. 李浩, "民事舉證責任研究" (1993), 中國政法大學出版社
  18. 江偉, "證據法學" (1999), 法律出版社

관련 논문AI추천

이 간행물의 다른 논문 (11건)