立法目的视角下行政证据与刑事证据衔接之分析——以《刑事诉讼法》第52条第2款为基础
|
摘要
法律条文既体现其所属的整部法律的立法目的,同时又有独有的立法目的。从立法目的角度分析一个法条,才能在实践中真正理解、正确实施、切实发挥法条的功效。2012年《刑事诉讼法》第52条第2款规定了行政证据与刑事证据的衔接,存在一定的合理性与正当性。在惩罚犯罪与保障人权这个大的立法目的的框架下,该条款的立法目的是解决行政执法中收集的证据在刑事诉讼中的运用问题。但行政证据与刑事证据衔接适用的主体、方式等具体问题,还需要立法以及司法解释进一步明确。
The legal provisions not only reflect the legislative purpose of the whole law, but also have its own legislative purpose. From the angle of legislative purpose, we can grasp and understand a law before we can truly understand, correctly implement and give full play to the effectiveness of the law in practice. The second paragraph of article 52 of The Criminal Procedure Law of 2012 stipulate the connection between administrative evidence and criminal evidence, and it is reasonable and justified. In the framework of the large legislative purpose of punishing crime and guaranteeing human rights, the purpose of this clause is to solve the problem of the application of evidence collected in the administrative law enforcement in criminal proceedings. However, for the specific issues of the application of the administrative evidence and criminal evidence, the legislative and judicial interpretations need further clarifying.
The legal provisions not only reflect the legislative purpose of the whole law, but also have its own legislative purpose. From the angle of legislative purpose, we can grasp and understand a law before we can truly understand, correctly implement and give full play to the effectiveness of the law in practice. The second paragraph of article 52 of The Criminal Procedure Law of 2012 stipulate the connection between administrative evidence and criminal evidence, and it is reasonable and justified. In the framework of the large legislative purpose of punishing crime and guaranteeing human rights, the purpose of this clause is to solve the problem of the application of evidence collected in the administrative law enforcement in criminal proceedings. However, for the specific issues of the application of the administrative evidence and criminal evidence, the legislative and judicial interpretations need further clarifying.
引文
[1]高一飞,林国强.论《刑事诉讼法修正案(草案)》证据部分[J].重庆理工大学学报:社会科学,2012(1).
[2]张晗.行政执法与刑事司法衔接之证据转化制度研究——以《刑事诉讼法》第52条第2款为切入点[J].法学杂志,2015(4).
[3]陈宝富,陈邦达.行政执法与刑事司法衔接中检察监督的必要性[J].法学,2008(9).
[4]刘品新.刑事证据疑难问题探索[M].北京:中国检察出版社,2006:49.
[5]郎胜.中华人民共和国刑事诉讼法修改与适用[M].北京:新华出版社,2012:120.
[6]万毅.证据“转化”规则批判[J].政治与法律,2011(1).
[7]姜虹.从证据能力视角审视行政证据向刑事证据转化[J].北京警察学院学报,2013(4).
[8]黄世斌.行政执法与刑事司法衔接中的证据转化问题初探[J].中国刑事法杂志,2012(5).
[9]杜磊.行政证据与刑事证据衔接规范研究[J].证据科学,2012(6).
[10]张晗.行政执法与刑事司法衔接之证据转化制度研究[J].法学杂志,2015(4).
[2]张晗.行政执法与刑事司法衔接之证据转化制度研究——以《刑事诉讼法》第52条第2款为切入点[J].法学杂志,2015(4).
[3]陈宝富,陈邦达.行政执法与刑事司法衔接中检察监督的必要性[J].法学,2008(9).
[4]刘品新.刑事证据疑难问题探索[M].北京:中国检察出版社,2006:49.
[5]郎胜.中华人民共和国刑事诉讼法修改与适用[M].北京:新华出版社,2012:120.
[6]万毅.证据“转化”规则批判[J].政治与法律,2011(1).
[7]姜虹.从证据能力视角审视行政证据向刑事证据转化[J].北京警察学院学报,2013(4).
[8]黄世斌.行政执法与刑事司法衔接中的证据转化问题初探[J].中国刑事法杂志,2012(5).
[9]杜磊.行政证据与刑事证据衔接规范研究[J].证据科学,2012(6).
[10]张晗.行政执法与刑事司法衔接之证据转化制度研究[J].法学杂志,2015(4).