四川大学学报:哲学社会科学版
四川大學學報:哲學社會科學版
사천대학학보:철학사회과학판
Journal of Sichuan University(Social Science Edition)
2013年
2期
137~148
,共null页
非法证据排除 多元主体 排除标准 排除程序 新刑事诉讼法
非法證據排除 多元主體 排除標準 排除程序 新刑事訴訟法
비법증거배제 다원주체 배제표준 배제정서 신형사소송법
exclusion of illegal evidence, multi-subjects, exclusion standards, exclusion procedure, thenew criminal procedure law
新刑事诉讼法将公检法三机关作为非法证据的排除主体,绩效考核机制、内部审核监督机制和过错执法责任追究机制分别提供了程序操作平台、组织保障措施和内在排除动力,使该制度在中国具备了相应的适用空间。短期来看,该制度不会大量催生不当“洗白”证据的情形,有助于激励办案人员形成追诉犯罪与保障人权并重的心理意识和行动自觉;长期来看,该制度在符合目前分段式追诉模式的同时,并不会显著阻碍有效司法审查的建立,是利大于弊的制度选择。为提高该制度的适用性和正面效应,应制定非法证据排除标准的分层规则,明确各机关排除非法证据的具体时机,加强非法证据排除程序的口头化和公开性。
新刑事訴訟法將公檢法三機關作為非法證據的排除主體,績效攷覈機製、內部審覈鑑督機製和過錯執法責任追究機製分彆提供瞭程序操作平檯、組織保障措施和內在排除動力,使該製度在中國具備瞭相應的適用空間。短期來看,該製度不會大量催生不噹“洗白”證據的情形,有助于激勵辦案人員形成追訴犯罪與保障人權併重的心理意識和行動自覺;長期來看,該製度在符閤目前分段式追訴模式的同時,併不會顯著阻礙有效司法審查的建立,是利大于弊的製度選擇。為提高該製度的適用性和正麵效應,應製定非法證據排除標準的分層規則,明確各機關排除非法證據的具體時機,加彊非法證據排除程序的口頭化和公開性。
신형사소송법장공검법삼궤관작위비법증거적배제주체,적효고핵궤제、내부심핵감독궤제화과착집법책임추구궤제분별제공료정서조작평태、조직보장조시화내재배제동력,사해제도재중국구비료상응적괄용공간。단기래간,해제도불회대량최생불당“세백”증거적정형,유조우격려판안인원형성추소범죄여보장인권병중적심리의식화행동자각;장기래간,해제도재부합목전분단식추소모식적동시,병불회현저조애유효사법심사적건립,시리대우폐적제도선택。위제고해제도적괄용성화정면효응,응제정비법증거배제표준적분층규칙,명학각궤관배제비법증거적구체시궤,가강비법증거배제정서적구두화화공개성。
The new criminal procedure law specifies public security organs, procuratorial organs and people's courts as the subjects of excluding illegal evidence. The performance evaluation mechanism, relatively mature internal quality audit mechanism and responsibility investigating system provide the procedural platform, the organizational security measures and the internal motivation respectively, making possible the application of this system in China. In the short term, this system will contribute to the formation of the officers' psychological consciousness and conscious action to balance prosecution of crimes and the protection of citizens' rights. Meanwhile, it won' t lead to a lot of cases where evidences are wrongly or purposefully bleached. In the long run, this system is more helpful than harmful, as it won't dramatically hinder the establishment of judicial review system while it fits the segmented prosecution mode. Overall, this system does more good than harm. In order to advance its applicability and positive effects, we should firstly enact layered standards for excluding illegal evidence; secondly, we need to clarify opportunity to exclude illegal evidence. Thirdly, we should enhance the orality and openness of exclusion procedures of evidence.