证据整理与假设评估:侦查阶段的事实认定问题研究
|
摘要
侦查阶段事实认定的推进是一个模糊和复杂的过程。在本质上,其推进是"从某个特定的假设将解释现有证据这一事实,到该假设为真"的论证,是一个创造性使用已知信息形成有待进一步调查(侦查)证实的假设的过程。它包含了证据整理与假设评估两个关键性阶段,这一阶段性划分除有助于辨识侦查思维的经验性和开放性特征外,更提供了重新审视并优化侦查阶段事实认定活动的关键步骤。通过对威格莫尔"论证建构方法"的拆解分析,描绘了侦查人员面对大量证据信息时证据整理和假设评估的过程,这个互动的思维推进过程不仅是假设的形成以及特定溯因推理的展开,更是论证构建过程本身。科学系统的证据整理和精细化假设评估在保障侦查阶段事实认定活动的准确性和可操作性方面具有重要价值。
The advance of fact determination in the investigation stage is a vague and complicated process.In essence,it advances the argument that "from the fact that a particular hypothesis will explain the existing evidence to the fact that the hypothesis is true ".It is a process of creatively using the known information to form a hypothesis to be confirmed by further investigation.It includes two key stages:evidence collation and hypothesis evaluation.This division of stages not only helps to identify the empirical and open features of investigative thinking,but also provides the key steps to re-examine and optimize the fact identification activities in investigation stage.By disassembling and analyzing Wigmore 's "Method of Argumentation Construction ",this paper is intended to describe the process of evidence collation and hypothesis evaluation when investigators are faced with a large amount of evidence information.This interactive thinking process is not only the formation of hypothesis and the expansion of specific retroactive reasoning,but also the process of argumentation construction itself.Scientific and systematic evidence collation and refined hypothesis evaluation are of great value in ensuring the accuracy and operability of fact identification activities in investigation stage.
The advance of fact determination in the investigation stage is a vague and complicated process.In essence,it advances the argument that "from the fact that a particular hypothesis will explain the existing evidence to the fact that the hypothesis is true ".It is a process of creatively using the known information to form a hypothesis to be confirmed by further investigation.It includes two key stages:evidence collation and hypothesis evaluation.This division of stages not only helps to identify the empirical and open features of investigative thinking,but also provides the key steps to re-examine and optimize the fact identification activities in investigation stage.By disassembling and analyzing Wigmore 's "Method of Argumentation Construction ",this paper is intended to describe the process of evidence collation and hypothesis evaluation when investigators are faced with a large amount of evidence information.This interactive thinking process is not only the formation of hypothesis and the expansion of specific retroactive reasoning,but also the process of argumentation construction itself.Scientific and systematic evidence collation and refined hypothesis evaluation are of great value in ensuring the accuracy and operability of fact identification activities in investigation stage.
引文
[1]Peter Lipton.Inference to the Best Explanation,London:Routledge,Chapter 1,p 5,(2004).
[2]David A.Binder,Paul Bergman.Fact Investigation:From Hypothesis to Proof,West Group,p 85,1984.
[3]David A.Schum.Species of Abductive Reasoning in Fact Investigation in Law,307,The Dynamics of Judicial Proof,PhysicaVerlag,2002 edition(April 29,2002).
[4]Best and Kellner.Postmodern Theory:Critical Interrogations(Basingstoke:Macmillan,1991)at pp283-294.
[5]Charles Sanders Peirce.Reasoning and the Logic of Things:The Cambridge Conferences Lectures of 1898,pp236-238(Kenneth L.Ketner ed.,1992).
[6]Gilbert H.Harman.The Inference to the Best Explanation,The Philosophical Review,Vol.74,p.89,No.1(Jan.,1965).
[7]David A.Binder,Paul Bergman.Fact Investigation:From Hypothesis to Proof,West Group,p181-184,(1984).
[8]Gilbert H.Harman.Enumerative as Inference to the Best Explanation,The Journal of Philosophy,Vol.65,No.18(Sep.19,1968).
[9]Charles Sanders Peirce,.Abduction and Induction,in Philosophical Writings of Peirce150-151(Justus Buchler ed.,1955).
[10]David A.Schum.关于证据科学的思考(Thoughts about a Science of Evidence)[J].王进喜,译.证据科学,2009,(1).
[11][12][14][21][美]罗纳德·J·艾伦,等.证据法:文本、问题和案例(第3版)[M].张保生,王进喜,赵滢,译.北京:高等教育出版社,2006.1-97.155-157.
[13]Charles Sanders Peirce.Reasoning and The Logic of Things:The Cambridge Conferences Lectures of 1898,p xiv,297(Kenneth L.Ketner ed.,1992).
[15][16]David A.Schum.Marshaling Thoughts and Evidence During Fact Investigation,40s.Tex.L.Rev.401(1999).
[17]David A.Schum.Alternative Views of Argument Construction From A Mass of Evidence,22 Cardozo L.Rev.1461(2000-2001).
[18]Gloria Philips-Wren(Editor).Advances in Intelligent Decision Technologies:Proceedings of the Second KES International Symposium IDT2010,Springer;2010 ed.,p6.
[19]张保生,等.证据法学[M].北京:高等教育出版社,2013.17.
[20]United States v.Mcveigh,1531 F.3d 1166,1201(10th Cir.1998).
[22][英]卡尔·波普尔.猜想与反驳[M].傅季重,纪树立,周昌忠,等译.上海:上海译文出版社,1986.51-53.
[23]J.R.Josephson,S.G.Josephson.Abducive Inference:Computation,Philosophy,Technology,Cambridge University Press,Chapter1 p5(1996).
[24]Paul Thagard.Evaluating Explanations in Law,Science,and Everyday Life,15CURRENT DIRECTIONS PSYCHOL.SCI.141,144(2006).
(1)在对一个犯罪时间跨度长达16年之久的连续投放炸弹的犯罪嫌疑人的形象勾勒中,创造性假设的优势得到了集中体现。这是一起真实案件:案件从1940年11月在纽约爱迪生大楼旁发现了一枚未爆炸的炸弹以及一封恐吓信开始,凶手连续实施投弹行为,并寄出恐吓信件,在1956年12月份炸飞了整个剧院,对此束手无策的警方不得不求助于心理学家布鲁塞尔博士。在警方提供的前后16年收集的包括“多封署名E.P的恐吓信”及其他相关证据事实的基础上,博士得出了最终被证明的准确得令人震惊的创造性假设:犯罪嫌疑人是一个患有偏执狂的中年男子;性格内向;年龄大约在40岁到50岁之间,且体格好;他可能是个孤独的单身汉,也有可能和一位老妇人生活在一起,此人爱整洁;信教;脾气暴躁;爱整洁;胡须刮得非常干净;受过良好的教育;有外国血统;是个熟练的技术工人;其作案动机是:被解除职务或受到谴责。
(2)这里使用“无穷多”来表述特定案件中证据或数据信息的排列组合方式并不十分恰当,根据爱丁顿在1929年阐述过的“无限猴子理论”,即“如果许多猴子任意敲打打字机键,最终可能会写出大英博物馆所有的书”,意在表明有限数量的数据的组合排列方式也必然是有限的,具体到特定案件的有效证据信息而言,其排列组合的方式也是有限的,尽管可能很大。
[2]David A.Binder,Paul Bergman.Fact Investigation:From Hypothesis to Proof,West Group,p 85,1984.
[3]David A.Schum.Species of Abductive Reasoning in Fact Investigation in Law,307,The Dynamics of Judicial Proof,PhysicaVerlag,2002 edition(April 29,2002).
[4]Best and Kellner.Postmodern Theory:Critical Interrogations(Basingstoke:Macmillan,1991)at pp283-294.
[5]Charles Sanders Peirce.Reasoning and the Logic of Things:The Cambridge Conferences Lectures of 1898,pp236-238(Kenneth L.Ketner ed.,1992).
[6]Gilbert H.Harman.The Inference to the Best Explanation,The Philosophical Review,Vol.74,p.89,No.1(Jan.,1965).
[7]David A.Binder,Paul Bergman.Fact Investigation:From Hypothesis to Proof,West Group,p181-184,(1984).
[8]Gilbert H.Harman.Enumerative as Inference to the Best Explanation,The Journal of Philosophy,Vol.65,No.18(Sep.19,1968).
[9]Charles Sanders Peirce,.Abduction and Induction,in Philosophical Writings of Peirce150-151(Justus Buchler ed.,1955).
[10]David A.Schum.关于证据科学的思考(Thoughts about a Science of Evidence)[J].王进喜,译.证据科学,2009,(1).
[11][12][14][21][美]罗纳德·J·艾伦,等.证据法:文本、问题和案例(第3版)[M].张保生,王进喜,赵滢,译.北京:高等教育出版社,2006.1-97.155-157.
[13]Charles Sanders Peirce.Reasoning and The Logic of Things:The Cambridge Conferences Lectures of 1898,p xiv,297(Kenneth L.Ketner ed.,1992).
[15][16]David A.Schum.Marshaling Thoughts and Evidence During Fact Investigation,40s.Tex.L.Rev.401(1999).
[17]David A.Schum.Alternative Views of Argument Construction From A Mass of Evidence,22 Cardozo L.Rev.1461(2000-2001).
[18]Gloria Philips-Wren(Editor).Advances in Intelligent Decision Technologies:Proceedings of the Second KES International Symposium IDT2010,Springer;2010 ed.,p6.
[19]张保生,等.证据法学[M].北京:高等教育出版社,2013.17.
[20]United States v.Mcveigh,1531 F.3d 1166,1201(10th Cir.1998).
[22][英]卡尔·波普尔.猜想与反驳[M].傅季重,纪树立,周昌忠,等译.上海:上海译文出版社,1986.51-53.
[23]J.R.Josephson,S.G.Josephson.Abducive Inference:Computation,Philosophy,Technology,Cambridge University Press,Chapter1 p5(1996).
[24]Paul Thagard.Evaluating Explanations in Law,Science,and Everyday Life,15CURRENT DIRECTIONS PSYCHOL.SCI.141,144(2006).
(1)在对一个犯罪时间跨度长达16年之久的连续投放炸弹的犯罪嫌疑人的形象勾勒中,创造性假设的优势得到了集中体现。这是一起真实案件:案件从1940年11月在纽约爱迪生大楼旁发现了一枚未爆炸的炸弹以及一封恐吓信开始,凶手连续实施投弹行为,并寄出恐吓信件,在1956年12月份炸飞了整个剧院,对此束手无策的警方不得不求助于心理学家布鲁塞尔博士。在警方提供的前后16年收集的包括“多封署名E.P的恐吓信”及其他相关证据事实的基础上,博士得出了最终被证明的准确得令人震惊的创造性假设:犯罪嫌疑人是一个患有偏执狂的中年男子;性格内向;年龄大约在40岁到50岁之间,且体格好;他可能是个孤独的单身汉,也有可能和一位老妇人生活在一起,此人爱整洁;信教;脾气暴躁;爱整洁;胡须刮得非常干净;受过良好的教育;有外国血统;是个熟练的技术工人;其作案动机是:被解除职务或受到谴责。
(2)这里使用“无穷多”来表述特定案件中证据或数据信息的排列组合方式并不十分恰当,根据爱丁顿在1929年阐述过的“无限猴子理论”,即“如果许多猴子任意敲打打字机键,最终可能会写出大英博物馆所有的书”,意在表明有限数量的数据的组合排列方式也必然是有限的,具体到特定案件的有效证据信息而言,其排列组合的方式也是有限的,尽管可能很大。