污点证人作证豁免制度研究
摘要
污点证人是指在刑事诉讼过程中,以得到有权司法机关承诺豁免其罪行或者免除利用其证言指证其罪行为前提,作为检控方证人出庭作证。污点证人作证豁免制度作为一项刑事司法制度,在美国、英国、德国等欧美国家,以及我国的香港、澳门、台湾地区的立法层面上都得到了确立。虽然在我国的刑事法制中存在立功、自首和酌定不起诉制度,但是,这些制度只能说是在执行效果上与污点证人豁免存在相似性,并不是真正的污点证人作证豁免制度。在犯罪形势严峻、侦查难度加大、贪污贿赂犯罪、黑社会性质犯罪亟需得到控制的情况下,确立污点证人作证豁免制度就成为当务之急。污点证人作证豁免制度在我国法律中的空白,为刑事诉讼程序中检察官徇私枉法、滥用职权提供了滋生的温床。建立该制度的关键问题在于如何对污点证人作证豁免进行规范,一者我国并没有形成以裁判为核心的刑事诉讼构造,豁免权的行使主体是人民法院还是人民检察院值得商榷;二者我国并不承认沉默权,而证人豁免的前提是证人享有拒绝作证权,如果赋予证人,尤其是污点证人这样的权利,我国的刑事诉讼法制度势必要进行彻底的变革,然而对于我国目前的刑事司法制度来说,这项变革的幅度又太大,难免会造成“消化不良”。本文在对污点证人作证豁免制度综合研究的基础上,拟通过结合污点证人自身特点和价值,对如何具体构建我国的污点证人作证豁免制度提出自己的设想。
The immunity of stain witness is one kind of criminal justice disposal measures which the judiciary gives to the stain witness who is exempt from all or part of a sentence for him being the attester for public prosecutor. This system has been applied widely by the criminal laws in the common law countries, especially, the United States law about it is a representative legislation of the system.
This paper is divided into four chapters to discuss the system of the immunity of stain witness.
ChapterⅠThe basic connotation of the system of the immunity of stain witness. This chapter is divided into three sections to analyze some of basic concepts of the immunity of stain witness. Stain witnesses refer to the witnesses have relationship with some other criminals for they have certain criminal suspects, so that they make a bargaining with the public prosecutor to attain law court as the witness of the public prosecutor, which could achieve the aim that the witness can avoid being prosecution. The first and the second parts talk about the witness which is the main body of the system.
Firstly, by analyzing the distinction among stain witnesses,informants, and undercover, we can include the unique characteristics of stain witnesses: First.,stain witnesses can be transformed from informants or undercover. Second, the witness is only the witness. Third, the criminal acts of stain witnesses are not the job of the undercover investigations.
Secondly,the paper analyzes the essential factors about the immunity of the stain witness. The one can not be stain witness unless he meets with the following factors. Firstly, He must be the non-co-accused. Secondly, the witness should bear criminal responsibility. Thirdly, all the taints should be not disposed. In this foundation, this article has analyzed the basic concepts and characters about the system of witness immunity with emphasis. This article believed that, the immunity of witness should be regarded as a concession of the public prosecutor to accuse successfully, because in deciding whether to exempt, witnesses have no right to choose.
ChapterⅡThe institutional principle of law analyses of the immunity of the witness. This chapter discusses the main theory of the immunity of witness, including two theoretical basis and their existence and reasonable.
The first part of this chapter deals with the theoretical basis of the immunity for witness. The first theory is based on opposition to the principle of self-incrimination privilege.
Opposed to the principle of self-incrimination privilege is a core principle that the modern legal nations use it widely as basic rules of evidence, it is designed to safeguard the people, particularly those involved in the proceedings of criminal suspects, defendants and witnesses in the proceedings of basic rights. According to the privilege, stain witnesses have the right to refuse to answer questions when they believe the questions asked maybe get themselves into dangerous condition. While, if stain witnesses have the absolute rights, the adjudication of cases will be brought to the great resistance.
The second basic theory is the principle of interests balance. The principle in criminal law means that the legislature and the judiciary in criminal activities, when not more than two interests standing for different values opposed the same time a conflict, the state officials and their representatives in accordance with certain principles and standards recognized party certain aspects of a superior or give up other aspects.
This article believes that all the justice that the criminal proceedings safeguard can be divided into three levels: the first level is national interests, or social and public interests; the second grade is a social aspect in the overall interest of the third grading is individual interests.
The conflict between the human right of the criminal suspects and defendants, witnesses against the trial, as well as the interests of different ranks the contradiction between the responses of the criminal proceedings form the basic conflict of criminal proceedings.
The immunity of witness protects the high order on the basis of safeguarding the interests of low-order, so it provides the best combination point for reconcile justice procedures justice, and relax the conflict between the two. The second part of the chapter two talks about the rationality of the system of the immunity of the stain witnesses. Firstly, the scarcity of the witnesses’testimony makes obtaining evidence become the key to the truth, and the immunity of the stain witnesses is able to dispel the worries about the witness so that the witness testimony to be given voluntarily. Secondly, because this system can provide critical evidence case, thus narrowing the scope of the search for evidence and ultimately greatly reduce litigation costs. Thirdly, the discretion of the prosecutor helps to the reality of the immunity. The existence of prosecutor discretion makes it possible to establish the system. Fourthly, the system of the immunity for stain witnesses helps to make up the deficiencies of the system of discretion not to prosecute.
ChapterⅢComparative study on the system of the stain witness immunity. This chapter lists some of laws about the system in some relevant countries and compares them. The system of the immunity for stain witnesses originated in common law, it is a basic system in common law, but civil law countries rarely adopt the system. Studying the foreigner immunity of witness is significative for the establishment of the system in our country.
ChapterⅣBuilding the system of the immunity of stain witness in our China. This chapter is the focus of this paper, it is divided into three sections, putting forward in the establishment of Chinese immunity of stain witness, and putting forward specific ideas constructed.
The first part is the need to establish the system in China. For the need for judicial practice, it is essential to establish the system in our country: it encourages witnesses to testify, which helps to raise the efficiency, and promotes the realization of justice entities; it regards the protection the human rights of crime suspects, defendants, and witnesses as the main content, and it represents the procedure’s legitimacy itself.
The second part talks about the problems of establishing the system. Firstly, the premise of the immunity of stain witness is against the forced self-incrimination privilege, specifically to give criminal suspects and defendants, but it does not recognize the right to remain silent in our country. Secondly, the system conflicts with the legal provisions and surrendered merit. The immunity of witness emphasizes immunity, but our surrender, meritorious system only derates the penalty of the stain witnesses not exempted from the penalty. If we want to establish the immunity of stain witnesses we must modify surrendered to reconsider amendments, merit system. Thirdly, the scope of the discretionary powers of the Prosecutor is very narrow. The third part is the concrete ideas to establish the immunity system in China. I will divide them into three specific ideas:
First, the type of immunity we adopt. The paper believes that our country should establish a crime immunity based crimes and evidence applicable immunity, supplemented by the stain witnesses to testify waiver system.
Second, we must restrict the immunity. The main thing is to make restrictive measures to limit the scope of the crimes as well as evidence provided by the standard limit.
Third, the protection measures about the rights of witness. The author believes that the immunity accord with the conditions of China. One measure is to establish in the public security organs similar to the Marshall Office of the independent body responsible for the protection of witnesses, another measure is to prescript the protection about the stain witness.
The immunity of stain witness is one kind of criminal justice disposal measures which the judiciary gives to the stain witness who is exempt from all or part of a sentence for him being the attester for public prosecutor. This system has been applied widely by the criminal laws in the common law countries, especially, the United States law about it is a representative legislation of the system.
This paper is divided into four chapters to discuss the system of the immunity of stain witness.
ChapterⅠThe basic connotation of the system of the immunity of stain witness. This chapter is divided into three sections to analyze some of basic concepts of the immunity of stain witness. Stain witnesses refer to the witnesses have relationship with some other criminals for they have certain criminal suspects, so that they make a bargaining with the public prosecutor to attain law court as the witness of the public prosecutor, which could achieve the aim that the witness can avoid being prosecution. The first and the second parts talk about the witness which is the main body of the system.
Firstly, by analyzing the distinction among stain witnesses,informants, and undercover, we can include the unique characteristics of stain witnesses: First.,stain witnesses can be transformed from informants or undercover. Second, the witness is only the witness. Third, the criminal acts of stain witnesses are not the job of the undercover investigations.
Secondly,the paper analyzes the essential factors about the immunity of the stain witness. The one can not be stain witness unless he meets with the following factors. Firstly, He must be the non-co-accused. Secondly, the witness should bear criminal responsibility. Thirdly, all the taints should be not disposed. In this foundation, this article has analyzed the basic concepts and characters about the system of witness immunity with emphasis. This article believed that, the immunity of witness should be regarded as a concession of the public prosecutor to accuse successfully, because in deciding whether to exempt, witnesses have no right to choose.
ChapterⅡThe institutional principle of law analyses of the immunity of the witness. This chapter discusses the main theory of the immunity of witness, including two theoretical basis and their existence and reasonable.
The first part of this chapter deals with the theoretical basis of the immunity for witness. The first theory is based on opposition to the principle of self-incrimination privilege.
Opposed to the principle of self-incrimination privilege is a core principle that the modern legal nations use it widely as basic rules of evidence, it is designed to safeguard the people, particularly those involved in the proceedings of criminal suspects, defendants and witnesses in the proceedings of basic rights. According to the privilege, stain witnesses have the right to refuse to answer questions when they believe the questions asked maybe get themselves into dangerous condition. While, if stain witnesses have the absolute rights, the adjudication of cases will be brought to the great resistance.
The second basic theory is the principle of interests balance. The principle in criminal law means that the legislature and the judiciary in criminal activities, when not more than two interests standing for different values opposed the same time a conflict, the state officials and their representatives in accordance with certain principles and standards recognized party certain aspects of a superior or give up other aspects.
This article believes that all the justice that the criminal proceedings safeguard can be divided into three levels: the first level is national interests, or social and public interests; the second grade is a social aspect in the overall interest of the third grading is individual interests.
The conflict between the human right of the criminal suspects and defendants, witnesses against the trial, as well as the interests of different ranks the contradiction between the responses of the criminal proceedings form the basic conflict of criminal proceedings.
The immunity of witness protects the high order on the basis of safeguarding the interests of low-order, so it provides the best combination point for reconcile justice procedures justice, and relax the conflict between the two. The second part of the chapter two talks about the rationality of the system of the immunity of the stain witnesses. Firstly, the scarcity of the witnesses’testimony makes obtaining evidence become the key to the truth, and the immunity of the stain witnesses is able to dispel the worries about the witness so that the witness testimony to be given voluntarily. Secondly, because this system can provide critical evidence case, thus narrowing the scope of the search for evidence and ultimately greatly reduce litigation costs. Thirdly, the discretion of the prosecutor helps to the reality of the immunity. The existence of prosecutor discretion makes it possible to establish the system. Fourthly, the system of the immunity for stain witnesses helps to make up the deficiencies of the system of discretion not to prosecute.
ChapterⅢComparative study on the system of the stain witness immunity. This chapter lists some of laws about the system in some relevant countries and compares them. The system of the immunity for stain witnesses originated in common law, it is a basic system in common law, but civil law countries rarely adopt the system. Studying the foreigner immunity of witness is significative for the establishment of the system in our country.
ChapterⅣBuilding the system of the immunity of stain witness in our China. This chapter is the focus of this paper, it is divided into three sections, putting forward in the establishment of Chinese immunity of stain witness, and putting forward specific ideas constructed.
The first part is the need to establish the system in China. For the need for judicial practice, it is essential to establish the system in our country: it encourages witnesses to testify, which helps to raise the efficiency, and promotes the realization of justice entities; it regards the protection the human rights of crime suspects, defendants, and witnesses as the main content, and it represents the procedure’s legitimacy itself.
The second part talks about the problems of establishing the system. Firstly, the premise of the immunity of stain witness is against the forced self-incrimination privilege, specifically to give criminal suspects and defendants, but it does not recognize the right to remain silent in our country. Secondly, the system conflicts with the legal provisions and surrendered merit. The immunity of witness emphasizes immunity, but our surrender, meritorious system only derates the penalty of the stain witnesses not exempted from the penalty. If we want to establish the immunity of stain witnesses we must modify surrendered to reconsider amendments, merit system. Thirdly, the scope of the discretionary powers of the Prosecutor is very narrow. The third part is the concrete ideas to establish the immunity system in China. I will divide them into three specific ideas:
First, the type of immunity we adopt. The paper believes that our country should establish a crime immunity based crimes and evidence applicable immunity, supplemented by the stain witnesses to testify waiver system.
Second, we must restrict the immunity. The main thing is to make restrictive measures to limit the scope of the crimes as well as evidence provided by the standard limit.
Third, the protection measures about the rights of witness. The author believes that the immunity accord with the conditions of China. One measure is to establish in the public security organs similar to the Marshall Office of the independent body responsible for the protection of witnesses, another measure is to prescript the protection about the stain witness.
引文
1. 马明亮:《刑事审判前的合作模式——以污点证人作证豁免制度为讨论范例》,《当代法学》2006 年第 3 期。
2.徐静村、潘金贵:《“污点证人”作证豁免制度研究》,《人民检察》2004年第 4 期。
3.陈学权:《污点证人豁免制度初论》,《国家检察官学院学报》,2003 年第 3 期。
4.梁玉霞:《论污点证人作证的交易豁免》,《中国刑事法杂志》2000 年总第 48 期。
5.聂昭伟:《论我国刑事证人资格的扩张》,《中国刑事法杂志》2005 年第 3 期。
6.吴郁、郭泽宇:《构建我国污点证人制度分析》,《贵州警官职业学院学报》2006 年第 6 期。
7.肖新征:《从参与方的博弈分析看污点证人的豁免》,《柳州师专学报》2006 年第 1 期。
8.唐亮、朱利江:《美国证人保护制度及其启示》,《人民检察》2001 年12 期。
9.邱福君:《我国辩诉交易制度的出路与构建》,《云南民族大学学报》 2004 年第 4 期。
10.陈光中、郑旭:《追求刑事诉讼价值的平衡——英俄近年司法改革述评 》, http://www.chinacourt.org/html/article/200212/19/26697.shtml ,2002 年 12 月 19 日。
11. 米镝:《论刑事“污点证人”的权利保障》,《河南师范大学学报(哲学社会科学版)》2007 年第 5 期。
12. 邬炼、吴璇欧:《污点证人的罪行豁免与证据使用豁免》,《河北北方学院学报》2007 年第 5 期。
13. 王正芬、朱闽川:《污点证人制度的现实性思考》,《法制与社会》2007年第 8 期。
14. 张春霞:《论污点证人之豁免》,《华东政法学院学报》2003 年第 2 期。
15. 张桂霞:《论污点证人作证豁免制度的适用》,《许昌学院学报》2007年第 3 期。
16. 汪海燕:《建构我国污点证人刑事责任豁免制度》,《法商研究》2006年第 1 期。
17. 倪铁:《污点证人豁免及其博弈分析》,《华东政法学院学报》2004 年第 1 期。
18. 王新环:《香港检控酌处权研究与借鉴》,《中国法学》2003 年第 6 期。
19. 梁艳芳:《论设立证人刑事责任豁免制度的必要性》,《行政与法》2002年第 4 期。
20. 杨文:《试论污点证人》,《江苏警官学院学报》2003 年第 6 期。
21. 谭世贵、邵毅超:《建立卧底证人制度初探》,《云南大学学报(法学版)》2006 年第 1 期。
22. 陈晓莉:《试论污点证人作证豁免制度》,2005 届刑事诉讼法学法律硕士,苏州大学。
23. 赴香港、澳门考察团:《香港、澳门打击有组织犯罪的立法及检控策略》,《国家检察官学院学报》2002 年第 2 期。
24. 张红霞:《污点证人作证豁免制度探析》,《国家检察官学院学报》2006年第 6 期。
1.王进喜:《刑事证人证言论》,中国人民公安大学出版社 2002 年第 1 版。
2.宋英辉:《刑事诉讼目的论》,中国人民公安大学出版社 1995 年第 1 版。
3.李学军:《美国刑事诉讼规则》,中国检察出版社 2003 年第 1 版。
4.游劝荣:《法治成本分析》,法律出版社 2005 年第 1 版。
5.张忠斌等:《刑事审判的价值取向》,武汉大学出版社 2005 年第 1 版。
6.曹建明主编:《公正与效率的法理研究》,人民法院出版社 2000 年第 1 版。
7.孙长永:《沉默权制度研究》,人民法院出版社 2001 年第 1 版。
8.宋显忠主编:《部门法哲学讲座》(第一辑),高等教育出版社 2005 年第 1 版。
9.陈瑞华:《刑事诉讼的前沿问题》,中国人民大学出版社 2005 年第 2 版。
10.郭立新主编:《检察机关侦查实务(3)》,中国检察出版社 2005 年第 1 版。
11.何家弘、张卫平主编:《外国证据法选译》(下卷),人民法院出版社 2002年第 1 版。
12.何家弘、张卫平主编:《外国证据法选译》(增补卷),人民法院出版社2002 年第 1 版。
13.李学军主编:《美国刑事诉讼规则》,中国检察出版社 2003 年第 1 版。
14.宋世杰、孙长永主编:《硕士论丛——刑诉法学》(第 1 辑),中国检察出版社 2002 年第 1 版。
15.左卫民:《刑事程序问题研究》,中国政法大学出版社 1999 年第 1 版。
16.孙长永:《侦查程序和人权》,中国方正出版社 2000 年第 1 版。
17.[加]丹尼尔·普瑞方廷、陈光中主编:《联合国刑事司法准则与中国刑事法制》,法律出版社 1998 年第 1 版。
18.[德]克劳思·罗科信:《刑事诉讼法》,吴丽琪译,法律出版社 2003 年第 1 版。
19.[日]松尾浩也:《日本刑事诉讼法》(下卷),张凌译,中国人民大学出版社 2005 年第 1 版。
20.[日]藤仓皓一郎等主编:《英美判例百选》,段匡、杨永庄译,北京大学出版社 2005 年第 1 版。
21.[英]丹宁勋爵:《法律的训诫》,刘庸安等译,群众出版社 1985 年第1 版。
22.[英]丹宁勋爵:《法律的正当程序》,刘庸安等译,法律出版社 1999年第 1 版。
23.[意]贝卡利亚:《论犯罪与刑罚》,黄风译,中国法制出版社 2005 年第 2 版。
24. [美]约翰·罗尔斯:《正义论》,何怀宏等译,中国社会科学出版社1998 年第 1 版。
25. [美]约翰·W·斯特龙主编:《麦考密克论证据》,汤建维等译,中国政法大学出版社 2004 年第 1 版。
26. [美]理查德·A·波斯纳:《证据法的经济分析》,徐昕、徐昀译,中国法制出版社 2004 年第 1 版。
2.徐静村、潘金贵:《“污点证人”作证豁免制度研究》,《人民检察》2004年第 4 期。
3.陈学权:《污点证人豁免制度初论》,《国家检察官学院学报》,2003 年第 3 期。
4.梁玉霞:《论污点证人作证的交易豁免》,《中国刑事法杂志》2000 年总第 48 期。
5.聂昭伟:《论我国刑事证人资格的扩张》,《中国刑事法杂志》2005 年第 3 期。
6.吴郁、郭泽宇:《构建我国污点证人制度分析》,《贵州警官职业学院学报》2006 年第 6 期。
7.肖新征:《从参与方的博弈分析看污点证人的豁免》,《柳州师专学报》2006 年第 1 期。
8.唐亮、朱利江:《美国证人保护制度及其启示》,《人民检察》2001 年12 期。
9.邱福君:《我国辩诉交易制度的出路与构建》,《云南民族大学学报》 2004 年第 4 期。
10.陈光中、郑旭:《追求刑事诉讼价值的平衡——英俄近年司法改革述评 》, http://www.chinacourt.org/html/article/200212/19/26697.shtml ,2002 年 12 月 19 日。
11. 米镝:《论刑事“污点证人”的权利保障》,《河南师范大学学报(哲学社会科学版)》2007 年第 5 期。
12. 邬炼、吴璇欧:《污点证人的罪行豁免与证据使用豁免》,《河北北方学院学报》2007 年第 5 期。
13. 王正芬、朱闽川:《污点证人制度的现实性思考》,《法制与社会》2007年第 8 期。
14. 张春霞:《论污点证人之豁免》,《华东政法学院学报》2003 年第 2 期。
15. 张桂霞:《论污点证人作证豁免制度的适用》,《许昌学院学报》2007年第 3 期。
16. 汪海燕:《建构我国污点证人刑事责任豁免制度》,《法商研究》2006年第 1 期。
17. 倪铁:《污点证人豁免及其博弈分析》,《华东政法学院学报》2004 年第 1 期。
18. 王新环:《香港检控酌处权研究与借鉴》,《中国法学》2003 年第 6 期。
19. 梁艳芳:《论设立证人刑事责任豁免制度的必要性》,《行政与法》2002年第 4 期。
20. 杨文:《试论污点证人》,《江苏警官学院学报》2003 年第 6 期。
21. 谭世贵、邵毅超:《建立卧底证人制度初探》,《云南大学学报(法学版)》2006 年第 1 期。
22. 陈晓莉:《试论污点证人作证豁免制度》,2005 届刑事诉讼法学法律硕士,苏州大学。
23. 赴香港、澳门考察团:《香港、澳门打击有组织犯罪的立法及检控策略》,《国家检察官学院学报》2002 年第 2 期。
24. 张红霞:《污点证人作证豁免制度探析》,《国家检察官学院学报》2006年第 6 期。
1.王进喜:《刑事证人证言论》,中国人民公安大学出版社 2002 年第 1 版。
2.宋英辉:《刑事诉讼目的论》,中国人民公安大学出版社 1995 年第 1 版。
3.李学军:《美国刑事诉讼规则》,中国检察出版社 2003 年第 1 版。
4.游劝荣:《法治成本分析》,法律出版社 2005 年第 1 版。
5.张忠斌等:《刑事审判的价值取向》,武汉大学出版社 2005 年第 1 版。
6.曹建明主编:《公正与效率的法理研究》,人民法院出版社 2000 年第 1 版。
7.孙长永:《沉默权制度研究》,人民法院出版社 2001 年第 1 版。
8.宋显忠主编:《部门法哲学讲座》(第一辑),高等教育出版社 2005 年第 1 版。
9.陈瑞华:《刑事诉讼的前沿问题》,中国人民大学出版社 2005 年第 2 版。
10.郭立新主编:《检察机关侦查实务(3)》,中国检察出版社 2005 年第 1 版。
11.何家弘、张卫平主编:《外国证据法选译》(下卷),人民法院出版社 2002年第 1 版。
12.何家弘、张卫平主编:《外国证据法选译》(增补卷),人民法院出版社2002 年第 1 版。
13.李学军主编:《美国刑事诉讼规则》,中国检察出版社 2003 年第 1 版。
14.宋世杰、孙长永主编:《硕士论丛——刑诉法学》(第 1 辑),中国检察出版社 2002 年第 1 版。
15.左卫民:《刑事程序问题研究》,中国政法大学出版社 1999 年第 1 版。
16.孙长永:《侦查程序和人权》,中国方正出版社 2000 年第 1 版。
17.[加]丹尼尔·普瑞方廷、陈光中主编:《联合国刑事司法准则与中国刑事法制》,法律出版社 1998 年第 1 版。
18.[德]克劳思·罗科信:《刑事诉讼法》,吴丽琪译,法律出版社 2003 年第 1 版。
19.[日]松尾浩也:《日本刑事诉讼法》(下卷),张凌译,中国人民大学出版社 2005 年第 1 版。
20.[日]藤仓皓一郎等主编:《英美判例百选》,段匡、杨永庄译,北京大学出版社 2005 年第 1 版。
21.[英]丹宁勋爵:《法律的训诫》,刘庸安等译,群众出版社 1985 年第1 版。
22.[英]丹宁勋爵:《法律的正当程序》,刘庸安等译,法律出版社 1999年第 1 版。
23.[意]贝卡利亚:《论犯罪与刑罚》,黄风译,中国法制出版社 2005 年第 2 版。
24. [美]约翰·罗尔斯:《正义论》,何怀宏等译,中国社会科学出版社1998 年第 1 版。
25. [美]约翰·W·斯特龙主编:《麦考密克论证据》,汤建维等译,中国政法大学出版社 2004 年第 1 版。
26. [美]理查德·A·波斯纳:《证据法的经济分析》,徐昕、徐昀译,中国法制出版社 2004 年第 1 版。