CAJ | 학술논문

非法证据排除规则是宪法程序的基本内容,美国宪法第5条修正案规定了不得强迫自证其罪,宪法判例据此推定出排除规则;日本等国宪法既规定了不得强迫自证其罪,也规定了排除规则;德国基本法从公权力的限制性规范推定出排除规则。排除规则排除的不是证据本身,而是公权力的违法行为,因为证据是先于程序而存在的客观实在,不能排除,也不应该排除。排除规则的价值取向可分为：单维度的价值定位和多维度的价值定位,前者在于保护犯罪嫌疑人和被告人的权利,后者还包括证人、被害人和社会大众的权利;不同维度的价值取向意味着非法证据的排除范围有别。我国宪法没有禁止强迫自证其罪和排除规则的规定,正在热议的《刑事诉讼法草案》对这两个规则作了具体规定,其意义重大,不容置疑,但也存在着实施的困难和障碍：一是与排除规则配套的司法体制、强制措施和侦查手段等有待完善;二是非法证据排除的范围和标准不确定、不具体、不合理;三是排除规则适用的例外情况没有专门规定,容易放纵公权力的恣意。
비법증거배제규칙시헌법정서적기본내용,미국헌법제5조수정안규정료불득강박자증기죄,헌법판례거차추정출배제규칙;일본등국헌법기규정료불득강박자증기죄,야규정료배제규칙;덕국기본법종공권력적한제성규범추정출배제규칙。배제규칙배제적불시증거본신,이시공권력적위법행위,인위증거시선우정서이존재적객관실재,불능배제,야불응해배제。배제규칙적개치취향가분위：단유도적개치정위화다유도적개치정위,전자재우보호범죄혐의인화피고인적권리,후자환포괄증인、피해인화사회대음적권리;불동유도적개치취향의미착비법증거적배제범위유별。아국헌법몰유금지강박자증기죄화배제규칙적규정,정재열의적《형사소송법초안》대저량개규칙작료구체규정,기의의중대,불용치의,단야존재착실시적곤난화장애：일시여배제규칙배투적사법체제、강제조시화정사수단등유대완선;이시비법증거배제적범위화표준불학정、불구체、불합리;삼시배제규칙괄용적예외정황몰유전문규정,용역방종공권력적자의。
As a basic constitutional procedure,the Exclusionary Rules are constructed by constitutional cases and regulated in the Fifth Amendment of American Constitution,commanding that no person shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself.Similar rules are also regulated in Japan.In Germany,the Exclusionary Rules are construed from restriction norms on public power in fundamental laws,in which the illegal conducts of public power are excluded rather than the illegal evidence itself.The evidence cannot and should be excluded because it is objective prior to procedures.The Exclusionary Rules have unilateral and multilateral value：the former is to protect rights of suspects and defendants;the latter also includes rights of witness,victim and public.Different value orientations differ in scope of exclusion.There are no such exclusionary rules in Constitution of China,so it is of great significance to introduce these rules in the Draft of Criminal Procedure Law.However,some implementation predicament should not be neglected.Firstly,supporting rules should be perfected such as judicial system,compulsory measures and investigation approaches.Secondly,the scope and standard of the Exclusionary Rules are still far from designated,specific and reasonable.Thirdly,since there are no exception rules,it is easy to result in discretionary exercise of public power.