论以“真实性”为核心的证明力规则之成因——以“真实性优于相关性”现象为视角
|
摘要
一直以来,中国的刑事证据立法存在"重真实性,轻相关性"的现象,主要表现为证明力判断标准的二元化以及证据相关性判断的"附属化",且集中体现在一系列以"真实性"为核心的证明力规则中。其中,裁判功能的多元化、以裁判为中心的诉讼构造缺失、法官对事实真相的渴求以及对口供的过分依赖等因素是各种"真实性"规则的主要成因。这种以真实性为核心的证明力规则不仅反映出侦查中心主义的诉讼构造难以发现事实真相,也反映出中国传统的"客观真实"理念在不断受到"法律真实"理念的挑战。
China's criminal evidence legislation has always had the phenomenon of "authenticity prior to relevance",which is reflected by the duality of the criterion for judgment about evidential power and the subsidiary position of the judgment about evidential relevance.It is particularly reflected in a series of rules of evidential power centered on authenticity,attributed to which are the factors of the diversification of judgment function,the lack of litigation structure centered on judgment,the eagerness of judges for the truth,and the over-dependence on confessions.The rule of evidential power centered on authenticity not only reveals the difficulty in finding the truth because of the investigation-oriented litigation structure,but also reflects the challenge of "legal authenticity" to the traditional "objective authenticity".
China's criminal evidence legislation has always had the phenomenon of "authenticity prior to relevance",which is reflected by the duality of the criterion for judgment about evidential power and the subsidiary position of the judgment about evidential relevance.It is particularly reflected in a series of rules of evidential power centered on authenticity,attributed to which are the factors of the diversification of judgment function,the lack of litigation structure centered on judgment,the eagerness of judges for the truth,and the over-dependence on confessions.The rule of evidential power centered on authenticity not only reveals the difficulty in finding the truth because of the investigation-oriented litigation structure,but also reflects the challenge of "legal authenticity" to the traditional "objective authenticity".
引文
[1] 李训虎.证明力规则检讨[J].法学研究,2010(2):158-160.
[2] 陈瑞华.以限制证据证明力为核心的新法定证据主义[J].法学研究,2012(6):147-149.
[3] 陈瑞华.刑事证据法学[M].北京:北京大学出版社,2013:103.
[4] 陈光中.刑事诉讼法[M].北京:北京大学出版社,2015:191.
[5] 陈瑞华.刑事证据法的理论问题[M].北京:法律出版社,2014:179.
[6] 龙宗智.印证与自由心证:我国刑事诉讼证明模式[J].法学研究,2004(2):114.
[7] 陈瑞华.刑事司法裁判的三种形态[J].中外法学,2012(6):1105-1107.
[8] 陈兴良.规范刑法学[M].北京:中国人民大学出版社,2015:182.
[9] 陈瑞华.刑事诉讼的前沿问题[M].北京:中国人民大学出版社,2015:280.
[10] 何家弘.沉默权制度及刑事司法的价值取向[J].国家检察官学院学报,2001(4):41-43.
[11] 刘根菊.在我国确定沉默权原则几个问题之研讨:下[J].中国法学,2000(3):39-40.
[12] 陈瑞华.案卷笔录中心主义[J].法学研究,2006(4):78-79.
[13] 汪建成.理想与现实:刑事证据理论的新探索[M].北京:北京大学出版社,2006:22.
[14] 牟军.口供中心主义之辩[J].河北法学,2005(12):35-37.
[15] 陈瑞华.论侦查中心主义[J].政法论坛,2017(2):3-4.
[2] 陈瑞华.以限制证据证明力为核心的新法定证据主义[J].法学研究,2012(6):147-149.
[3] 陈瑞华.刑事证据法学[M].北京:北京大学出版社,2013:103.
[4] 陈光中.刑事诉讼法[M].北京:北京大学出版社,2015:191.
[5] 陈瑞华.刑事证据法的理论问题[M].北京:法律出版社,2014:179.
[6] 龙宗智.印证与自由心证:我国刑事诉讼证明模式[J].法学研究,2004(2):114.
[7] 陈瑞华.刑事司法裁判的三种形态[J].中外法学,2012(6):1105-1107.
[8] 陈兴良.规范刑法学[M].北京:中国人民大学出版社,2015:182.
[9] 陈瑞华.刑事诉讼的前沿问题[M].北京:中国人民大学出版社,2015:280.
[10] 何家弘.沉默权制度及刑事司法的价值取向[J].国家检察官学院学报,2001(4):41-43.
[11] 刘根菊.在我国确定沉默权原则几个问题之研讨:下[J].中国法学,2000(3):39-40.
[12] 陈瑞华.案卷笔录中心主义[J].法学研究,2006(4):78-79.
[13] 汪建成.理想与现实:刑事证据理论的新探索[M].北京:北京大学出版社,2006:22.
[14] 牟军.口供中心主义之辩[J].河北法学,2005(12):35-37.
[15] 陈瑞华.论侦查中心主义[J].政法论坛,2017(2):3-4.