死刑案件证明标准探析
|
摘要
剥夺犯罪者的生命是最为严重的刑罚,因而作出死刑判决应当是万分慎重的决定。我国《刑事诉讼法》并未将死刑案件与普通刑事案件的证明标准进行区别规定,而是统一适用"案件事实清楚,证据确实、充分,排除合理怀疑"的刑事案件证明标准,体现不出我国对死刑判决的审慎态度。在域外各国大幅减少死刑适用甚至废除死刑的背景之下,我国也应当对死刑案件的证明标准予以精细完善,如区分死刑案件定罪与量刑程序证明标准、设置死刑案件证明标准配套机制等,对死刑判决质量进行严格把关,逐渐减少死刑的适用。
Depriving the criminal of his life is the most serious penalty, so it should be a very prudent decision to make a death sentence. Criminal Procedure Law of China does not distinguish the standard of proof between the death penalty case and the ordinary criminal case. However, the standard of proof in criminal cases that "the facts of the case are clear, the evidence is solid and sufficient, and beyond reasonable doubt" is applied uniformly, which does not reflect our prudent attitude towards the death penalty.Against the background of the drastic reduction in the application or even abolition of the death penalty in foreign countries, we should improve the standard of proof in death penalty cases, such as distinguishing between the standard of conviction and sentencing procedure of death penalty cases, and setting up the supporting mechanism of proof standard of death penalty cases, to strictly check the quality of death penalty sentence and gradually reduce the application of the death penalty.
Depriving the criminal of his life is the most serious penalty, so it should be a very prudent decision to make a death sentence. Criminal Procedure Law of China does not distinguish the standard of proof between the death penalty case and the ordinary criminal case. However, the standard of proof in criminal cases that "the facts of the case are clear, the evidence is solid and sufficient, and beyond reasonable doubt" is applied uniformly, which does not reflect our prudent attitude towards the death penalty.Against the background of the drastic reduction in the application or even abolition of the death penalty in foreign countries, we should improve the standard of proof in death penalty cases, such as distinguishing between the standard of conviction and sentencing procedure of death penalty cases, and setting up the supporting mechanism of proof standard of death penalty cases, to strictly check the quality of death penalty sentence and gradually reduce the application of the death penalty.
引文
[1]宋冰心.死刑案件证明标准的规范化研究[M].北京:中国政法大学出版社, 2011.
[2]卞建林.刑事证明理论[M].北京:中国人民公安大学出版社, 2004.
[3]黄芳.论死刑适用的国际标准与国内法的协调[J].法学评论. 2003(06):35.
[4]杨正万.死刑正当程序之探讨[M].北京:中国人民公安大学出版社, 2004.
[5]陈卫东,李训虎.分而治之:一种完善死刑案件证明标准的思路[J].人民检察. 2007(08):45.
[6]孙长永.刑事证明责任制度研究[M].北京:中国法制出版社, 2009.
[7]秦宗文.死刑案件证明标准的困局与破解[J].中国刑事法杂志. 2009(02):43.
[8]陈虎.提高死刑案件证明标准——一个似是而非的问题[J].中外法学. 2010(03):100.
[9]王敏远.死刑案件的证明“标准”及刑事诉讼法的修改[J].法学. 2008(07):89.
[10]陈虎.死刑案件证明标准改革之理论误区[J].法学论坛. 2010(02):102.
[11]刘金友.证明标准研究[M].北京:中国政法大学出版社, 2009.
[12]West's Encyclopedia of American Law,edition 2. Copyright 2008.
[13]董玉庭.刑事证明标准之证成[J].刑事法评论,2009(25):581.
[14]杨宇冠.死刑案件的程序控制若干问题——刑事司法国际准则角度[J].比较法研究,2006(05):69.
[15]杨宇冠.死刑案件的程序控制[M].北京:中国人民公安大学出版社,2010.
[16]陈瑞华.定罪与量刑的程序分离——中国刑事审判制度改革的另一种思路[J].法学,2008(06):42.
[17]杨宇冠.论死刑案件证明标准之完善——新《刑事诉讼法》实施问题思考[J].清华法学,2012(03):72-73.
[18]孙长永.刑事证明责任制度研究[M].北京:中国法制出版社, 2009.
[2]卞建林.刑事证明理论[M].北京:中国人民公安大学出版社, 2004.
[3]黄芳.论死刑适用的国际标准与国内法的协调[J].法学评论. 2003(06):35.
[4]杨正万.死刑正当程序之探讨[M].北京:中国人民公安大学出版社, 2004.
[5]陈卫东,李训虎.分而治之:一种完善死刑案件证明标准的思路[J].人民检察. 2007(08):45.
[6]孙长永.刑事证明责任制度研究[M].北京:中国法制出版社, 2009.
[7]秦宗文.死刑案件证明标准的困局与破解[J].中国刑事法杂志. 2009(02):43.
[8]陈虎.提高死刑案件证明标准——一个似是而非的问题[J].中外法学. 2010(03):100.
[9]王敏远.死刑案件的证明“标准”及刑事诉讼法的修改[J].法学. 2008(07):89.
[10]陈虎.死刑案件证明标准改革之理论误区[J].法学论坛. 2010(02):102.
[11]刘金友.证明标准研究[M].北京:中国政法大学出版社, 2009.
[12]West's Encyclopedia of American Law,edition 2. Copyright 2008.
[13]董玉庭.刑事证明标准之证成[J].刑事法评论,2009(25):581.
[14]杨宇冠.死刑案件的程序控制若干问题——刑事司法国际准则角度[J].比较法研究,2006(05):69.
[15]杨宇冠.死刑案件的程序控制[M].北京:中国人民公安大学出版社,2010.
[16]陈瑞华.定罪与量刑的程序分离——中国刑事审判制度改革的另一种思路[J].法学,2008(06):42.
[17]杨宇冠.论死刑案件证明标准之完善——新《刑事诉讼法》实施问题思考[J].清华法学,2012(03):72-73.
[18]孙长永.刑事证明责任制度研究[M].北京:中国法制出版社, 2009.