技术侦查证据规范运用之进路
|
摘要
2012年《刑事诉讼法》赋予技术侦查证据以证据能力,但由于技术侦查证据规范的不完善导致技术侦查措施面临从幕后走到台前的滥用风险,并引发了三大层面的价值矛盾,即保守秘密与人权保障的矛盾、证据价值发挥与司法资源合理配置的矛盾、真实发现与程序正义之间的矛盾。矛盾冲突的化解有赖于制度的力量,技术侦查证据规范本土化的构建思路为:对证据审查模式进行梯度设计、明确技术侦查证据使用的决定主体、构建非法技术侦查证据排除规则。
The Criminal Procedure Law of 2012 offered the evidence of technical investigation evidential effect,but the technical investigation measures are faced with abuse risk from being behind-the-scenes to publicly known,due to imperfect norms in relevant laws.The imperfection has led to three levels of value contradiction:the contradiction between secrets keeping and human rights protection,the contradiction between the use of evidence value and the rational allocation of judicial resources,and the contradiction between true discovery and procedural justice.The resolution of the above contradictions depends on the power of a system.Therefore,the construction of localization is presented as follows:gradient design of the evidence review model,specification of the body deciding the use of technical investigation evidence,and construction of the exclusionary rules for the evidence of illegal technical investigation.
The Criminal Procedure Law of 2012 offered the evidence of technical investigation evidential effect,but the technical investigation measures are faced with abuse risk from being behind-the-scenes to publicly known,due to imperfect norms in relevant laws.The imperfection has led to three levels of value contradiction:the contradiction between secrets keeping and human rights protection,the contradiction between the use of evidence value and the rational allocation of judicial resources,and the contradiction between true discovery and procedural justice.The resolution of the above contradictions depends on the power of a system.Therefore,the construction of localization is presented as follows:gradient design of the evidence review model,specification of the body deciding the use of technical investigation evidence,and construction of the exclusionary rules for the evidence of illegal technical investigation.
引文
[1]王东.技术侦查的法律规制[J].中国法学,2014(5):273-283.
[2]王新清,姬艳涛.技术侦查证据使用问题研究[J].证据科学,2012,20(4):408-413.
[3]王兆鹏.美国刑事诉讼法[M].北京:北京大学出版社,2005:219.
[4]德国刑事诉讼法典[M].李昌珂,译.北京:中国政法大学出版社,1998:34
[5]兰跃军.比较法视野中的技术侦查措施[J].中国刑事法杂志,2013(1):66-74.
[6]刘鹏.技术侦查疑难问题研究[J].法学杂志,2017(7):116-122.
[7]陈光中.完善的辩护制度是国家民主法治发达的重要标志[J].中国法律评论,2015(2):1-4.
[8]万毅.证据“转化”规则批判[J].政治与法律,2011(1):130-140.
[9]左卫民,马静华.中国刑事诉讼运行机制实证研究——以新《刑事诉讼法》实施中的重点问题为关注点[M].北京:法律出版社,2015:141.
[10]肖建国.程序公正的理念及其实现[J].法学研究,1999(3):5-23.
[11]戴雪.英宪精义[M].雷宾南,译,北京:中国法制出版社,2001:10.
[12]马康.技术侦查证据认定研究——以证据能力为切入的分析[J].时代法学,2017(1):106-111.
[13]陈卫东.秘密侦查合法化之辩[N].法制日报,2007-02-11(2).
[2]王新清,姬艳涛.技术侦查证据使用问题研究[J].证据科学,2012,20(4):408-413.
[3]王兆鹏.美国刑事诉讼法[M].北京:北京大学出版社,2005:219.
[4]德国刑事诉讼法典[M].李昌珂,译.北京:中国政法大学出版社,1998:34
[5]兰跃军.比较法视野中的技术侦查措施[J].中国刑事法杂志,2013(1):66-74.
[6]刘鹏.技术侦查疑难问题研究[J].法学杂志,2017(7):116-122.
[7]陈光中.完善的辩护制度是国家民主法治发达的重要标志[J].中国法律评论,2015(2):1-4.
[8]万毅.证据“转化”规则批判[J].政治与法律,2011(1):130-140.
[9]左卫民,马静华.中国刑事诉讼运行机制实证研究——以新《刑事诉讼法》实施中的重点问题为关注点[M].北京:法律出版社,2015:141.
[10]肖建国.程序公正的理念及其实现[J].法学研究,1999(3):5-23.
[11]戴雪.英宪精义[M].雷宾南,译,北京:中国法制出版社,2001:10.
[12]马康.技术侦查证据认定研究——以证据能力为切入的分析[J].时代法学,2017(1):106-111.
[13]陈卫东.秘密侦查合法化之辩[N].法制日报,2007-02-11(2).