CAJ | 학술논문

2012年修正后的《刑事诉讼法》正式确立了非法证据排除规则。但是，从司法解释上升为立法规范并不能自动解决非法证据排除规则的实效性问题。而且，通过分析2013年做出的有关非法证据排除请求的判决书，我们发现，在司法实践中，法院往往将非法证据排除与供述的真实性问题捆绑在一起，不愿意仅仅因为取证手段违法而排除证据。导致这一现状的原因至少有两点：在司法体制方面，法院因缺乏独立性而无力承担督导侦查违法的重任；在立法方面，立法用语的弹性以及回溯性证明的难度，致使排除规则过分依赖法院的自由裁量。因此，为了保证排除规则的实效性，我们建议通过以下技术化改造，增强排除规则适用的确定性：将直接面向事实的事后制裁规则转变为一种面向程序的事前预防规则。
2012년수정후적《형사소송법》정식학립료비법증거배제규칙。단시，종사법해석상승위입법규범병불능자동해결비법증거배제규칙적실효성문제。이차，통과분석2013년주출적유관비법증거배제청구적판결서，아문발현，재사법실천중，법원왕왕장비법증거배제여공술적진실성문제곤방재일기，불원의부부인위취증수단위법이배제증거。도치저일현상적원인지소유량점：재사법체제방면，법원인결핍독립성이무력승담독도정사위법적중임；재입법방면，입법용어적탄성이급회소성증명적난도，치사배제규칙과분의뢰법원적자유재량。인차，위료보증배제규칙적실효성，아문건의통과이하기술화개조，증강배제규칙괄용적학정성：장직접면향사실적사후제재규칙전변위일충면향정서적사전예방규칙。
The exclusionary rule of illegally obtained evidence was formally incorporated into Chinese Criminal Procedure Law by the amendment of 2012. However, being a part of statute cannot guarantee the ef- fectiveness of exclusionary rule in practice. Moreover, based on the judgments which deal with the motion to suppress the evidence obtained by torture purported by the defense lawyers in 2013, courts usually combine the exclusionary rule with the truth of the suspects＇ confessions and are reluctant to exclude the confession merely because of the illegality of the evidence. There are at least two reasons for this ： firstly, due to the lack of inde- pendence, Chinese courts cannot fulfill the task to discipline the police violation; secondly, because of the flexibility of the legal language and the difficulty of proving the fact of illegal means, such as torture, there is a wide range of discretion of judges on the application of the exclusionary rule. In order to make the exclusionary rule to be effective in practice, the law should make the exclusionary rule a clear-cut rule by modifying the cur- rent post-disciplining rule based on the fact of torture into a precautionary one based on the procedural viola- tion.