本文關(guān)鍵詞： 非法證據(jù) 證明責(zé)任 證明標(biāo)準(zhǔn) 保障人權(quán) 威懾理論　出處：《吉林大學(xué)》2014年碩士論文　論文類型：學(xué)位論文

【摘要】：非法證據(jù)排除規(guī)則起源于英美法系，美國(guó)于20世紀(jì)初通過(guò)威克斯案、馬普案及里昂案發(fā)展出了非法證據(jù)排除規(guī)則并將該規(guī)則統(tǒng)一適用于各州，后來(lái)又陸續(xù)通過(guò)納多恩案、王森案、默里案及尼克斯案確立了毒樹(shù)之果規(guī)則及其例外規(guī)則。大陸法系的代表國(guó)家德國(guó)的刑事訴訟法則強(qiáng)調(diào)，得以裁判案件事實(shí)的基礎(chǔ)應(yīng)當(dāng)是未經(jīng)禁止使用的證據(jù)，而且這些證據(jù)要經(jīng)過(guò)嚴(yán)格的證明程序。因此德國(guó)法院用以對(duì)被告人定罪量刑的證據(jù)都是首先具備了證據(jù)資格然后又經(jīng)過(guò)法定證明程序予以證明的證據(jù)，圍繞隱私權(quán)、人身權(quán)等重要權(quán)益德國(guó)制定了頗具特色的非法證據(jù)排除規(guī)則。 非法證據(jù)排除規(guī)則，通常指法庭不應(yīng)使用偵查人員通過(guò)暴力、威脅等非法手段取得的證據(jù)，在刑事審判中該非法證據(jù)不得作為對(duì)被告人定罪量刑之根據(jù)，后又發(fā)展到非法證據(jù)同樣不能作為批準(zhǔn)逮捕、提起公訴或搜查扣押之依據(jù)，被告人可以因法庭將非法證據(jù)作為定案之根據(jù)提出上訴。 我國(guó)刑事訴訟法歷來(lái)要求偵查機(jī)關(guān)收集犯罪證據(jù)并由公訴機(jī)關(guān)完成追訴犯罪、打擊犯罪的任務(wù)，近年來(lái)又逐步要求司法機(jī)關(guān)在偵查及起訴過(guò)程中，奉行程序正義，保障基本人權(quán)。我國(guó)要成為社會(huì)主義法治國(guó)家，就必須建立起自己的非法證據(jù)排除規(guī)則，這套規(guī)則旨在通過(guò)威懾作用以消除刑訊逼供、暴力取證，達(dá)到尊重并保障人權(quán)和維護(hù)司法尊嚴(yán)及公正的積極作用。 作為一名刑事法官，筆者在審判實(shí)踐中確實(shí)遇見(jiàn)過(guò)被告人提出遭受刑訊逼供的情況，對(duì)于非法證據(jù)排除中的困惑也成為了實(shí)務(wù)中關(guān)注的焦點(diǎn)。本文的研究，筆者將對(duì)參與審理的一起涉黑案件進(jìn)行探討，提舉被告人和辯護(hù)人同公訴機(jī)關(guān)在非法證據(jù)調(diào)查階段的矛盾焦點(diǎn)，對(duì)理論和實(shí)務(wù)中的難點(diǎn)及疑問(wèn)予以分析和回應(yīng)。 在我國(guó)非法證據(jù)主要包括：通過(guò)暴力、威脅等非法手段獲得的犯罪嫌疑人、被告人的供述和被害人陳述及證人證言這類非法言詞證據(jù)以及不符合法定程序，可能嚴(yán)重影響司法公正的非法實(shí)物證據(jù)。公訴機(jī)關(guān)必須對(duì)自己提供的證據(jù)的合法性承擔(dān)舉證責(zé)任，而且要達(dá)到確實(shí)、充分的程度，，當(dāng)事人只需要提供該證據(jù)的系不合法取得的線索即可啟動(dòng)調(diào)查程序。當(dāng)法庭對(duì)證據(jù)的合法性存在疑問(wèn)之時(shí)，該證據(jù)材料即應(yīng)作為非法證據(jù)予以排除，即因不具備證據(jù)資格而根本不能稱其為證據(jù)；如果法庭認(rèn)為這些證據(jù)具有充分理由可以使人信服并據(jù)此做出證據(jù)合法的判斷，那么此時(shí)公訴機(jī)關(guān)的證明已經(jīng)排除了合理懷疑從而達(dá)到了確實(shí)、充分的程度。 只要發(fā)現(xiàn)了非法證據(jù)，無(wú)論在偵查階段還是審查起訴階段，偵查機(jī)關(guān)、檢察機(jī)關(guān)均可以依據(jù)刑事訴訟法的非法證據(jù)規(guī)則將非法證據(jù)予以排除，以踐行威懾理論并保障被告人的人權(quán)。關(guān)于法院審判過(guò)程中非法證據(jù)應(yīng)何時(shí)被排除理論和實(shí)踐均存在爭(zhēng)議，但筆者認(rèn)為既然法律專門設(shè)置了非法證據(jù)的調(diào)查程序，那么在該程序結(jié)束后合議庭即應(yīng)進(jìn)行評(píng)議，并將調(diào)查結(jié)果予以公布，否則非法證據(jù)勢(shì)必影響法官的自由心證。 非法證據(jù)排除規(guī)則是我國(guó)刑事訴訟法修改的重要內(nèi)容，作為約束取證行為以踐行威懾理論和保障人權(quán)及公民權(quán)利的重要制度，雖然在適用過(guò)程中還會(huì)存在諸多問(wèn)題，但追求正義的腳步不會(huì)停歇，相信不久的將來(lái)法治中國(guó)必將崛起！
[Abstract]:The exclusionary rule originated in the Anglo American law system, the United States through the case of Weekes in the early twentieth Century, MAPP and Leon case develops the exclusionary rule of illegal evidence and the rules applies to the state, and later by Donne case, Wang Sen case and Nicks case, Murray established fruit of the poisonous tree rules and exceptions emphasize the rules. The representative of the continental law system of Germany's criminal procedure law, the basis to referee the facts of the case should be banned without evidence, and the evidence must undergo a rigorous proof procedure. Therefore the German court for the defendant's conviction and sentencing evidence is first of all with the qualification of evidence and then through legal procedures to prove to prove the evidence on the right to privacy, illegal evidence of personal rights and other important rights and interests of Germany has developed a distinctive rule.
The exclusionary rules, the court should not be used normally fingering the investigators through violence, threats and other illegal means to obtain evidence in the criminal trial of the illegal evidence is not as to according to the defendant's conviction and sentencing, later development of the illegal evidence is not the same as approval of arrest, prosecution or filed according to search and seizure, the defendant the illegal evidence as the verdict of appeal for according to the court.
The criminal procedure law of our country has always been the investigation organ to collect criminal evidence and completed by the public prosecution to prosecute crime crime task in recent years and gradually require judicial authorities in the investigation and prosecution in the process of pursuing procedural justice, to protect basic human rights. China should become a socialist country under the rule of law, we must set up their own illegal evidence the rule, this set of rules aimed at deterrence to eliminate the inquisition by torture, evidence of violence, to respect and protect human rights and safeguard the dignity of the judiciary and the positive role of justice.
As a criminal judge, the author in the trial practice really met the defendant proposed by the inquisition by torture, to the exclusion of illegal evidence in the confusion has become the focus of attention in practice. In this article, the author will participate in the hearing of the case involving the Mafia to lift the defendant and counsel with public prosecution authorities in the stage of illegal evidence investigation focus of conflict, to analyze and respond to the difficulties and questions in the theory and practice.
Illegal evidence in our country mainly includes: through violence, threats and other illegal means to obtain the criminal suspect, the defendant's confession and the statements and testimony of witnesses this kind of illegal evidence and does not comply with the statutory procedures, may seriously affect the justice of illegal physical evidence. The prosecution must bear the burden of proof on the legality of their evidence to achieve, and indeed, the full extent of the parties need to provide evidence of the Department of illegal clues can be made to start the investigation process. When in doubt the legitimacy of the court on the evidence when the evidence should be excluded as illegal evidence, that is because they do not have the qualification of evidence but cannot call it evidence; if the court considers that the evidence is sufficient reason to be convincing evidence and make legal judgment, so that the public prosecutor has In addition to reasonable doubt, it has reached a true and sufficient degree.
If found illegal evidence, whether in the investigation stage or the stage of review and prosecution, investigation organs, procuratorial organs can be based on the rules of illegal evidence in criminal procedure law will be to exclude illegally obtained evidence, in order to practice the theory of deterrence and protect the human rights of the accused. The court trial process about illegal evidence should be excluded when the theory and practice are controversial but, I think that since the investigation procedure law specifically set up illegal evidence, then in the program after the end of the collegial panel shall be reviewed, and the findings to be published, otherwise it will affect the judge's potential illegal evidence freeproof.
Exclusionary rule is an important content of modification of the criminal procedure law of our country, the important system as a constraint to practice the theory of deterrence act and the protection of human rights and the rights of citizens, although in the process of the application also has many problems, but the pursuit of justice will not stop the pace of the rule of law, I believe that in the near future China will rise!

【學(xué)位授予單位】：吉林大學(xué)
【學(xué)位級(jí)別】：碩士
【學(xué)位授予年份】：2014
【分類號(hào)】：D925.2

【相似文獻(xiàn)】

相關(guān)期刊論文 前10條

1 李軍;論非法證據(jù)排除理念的中國(guó)化[J];社會(huì)科學(xué)研究;2004年03期

2 王建華;非法證據(jù)排除規(guī)則的比較與完善[J];廣西青年干部學(xué)院學(xué)報(bào);2004年03期

3 蒲艷暉;非法證據(jù)排除規(guī)則的法理誤區(qū)及重構(gòu)[J];甘肅理論學(xué)刊;2004年06期

4 張愛(ài)艷;非法證據(jù)排除規(guī)則芻議[J];山東審判;2004年03期

5 柴艷茹;;完善我國(guó)非法證據(jù)排除規(guī)則的思考(上)[J];公安教育;2006年09期

6 寧杰;;非法證據(jù)排除規(guī)則的法理分析[J];法律適用;2006年06期

7 舒真;;論非法證據(jù)排除[J];商洛師范專科學(xué)校學(xué)報(bào);2006年02期

8 羅先云;;非法證據(jù)排除規(guī)則與相關(guān)制度的理性抉擇[J];河南司法警官職業(yè)學(xué)院學(xué)報(bào);2006年03期

9 周福民;;我國(guó)確立非法證據(jù)排除規(guī)則的必要性和可行性[J];法學(xué);2007年01期

10 王志堅(jiān);楊亞民;;我國(guó)非法證據(jù)排除規(guī)則的模式選擇[J];法學(xué);2007年01期

相關(guān)會(huì)議論文 前10條

1 潘偉明;;刑事非法證據(jù)排除的困境與出路——以《“兩高三部”刑事非法證據(jù)排除規(guī)定》為視角[A];全國(guó)法院系統(tǒng)第二十二屆學(xué)術(shù)討論會(huì)論文集[C];2011年

2 田健偉;葛海濤;;監(jiān)所檢察視野下的非法證據(jù)排除問(wèn)題[A];第八屆國(guó)家高級(jí)檢察官論壇論文集：證據(jù)制度的完善及新要求[C];2012年

3 尹暢;;非法證據(jù)排除規(guī)則給檢察工作帶來(lái)的挑戰(zhàn)與應(yīng)對(duì)策略研究[A];第八屆國(guó)家高級(jí)檢察官論壇論文集：證據(jù)制度的完善及新要求[C];2012年

4 吳仁義;張鳳京;;“非法證據(jù)排除”的若干思考[A];第八屆國(guó)家高級(jí)檢察官論壇論文集：證據(jù)制度的完善及新要求[C];2012年

5 邱晶;陳月飛;;非法證據(jù)排除規(guī)則在實(shí)踐中面臨的問(wèn)題及破解建議[A];第九屆國(guó)家高級(jí)檢察官論壇論文集：其他[C];2013年

6 溫輝;;非法證據(jù)排除規(guī)則的意義與責(zé)任——一種人權(quán)視角[A];第八屆國(guó)家高級(jí)檢察官論壇論文集：尊重和保障人權(quán)條款在刑事司法中的落實(shí)[C];2012年

7 維英;;論檢察機(jī)關(guān)如何貫徹落實(shí)非法證據(jù)排除制度[A];第八屆國(guó)家高級(jí)檢察官論壇論文集：證據(jù)制度的完善及新要求[C];2012年

8 陳雷;;非法證據(jù)排除規(guī)則對(duì)自偵工作的影響[A];第八屆國(guó)家高級(jí)檢察官論壇論文集：證據(jù)制度的完善及新要求[C];2012年

9 劉慧;李斌;;公訴工作中非法證據(jù)排除規(guī)則的適用[A];第八屆國(guó)家高級(jí)檢察官論壇論文集：證據(jù)制度的完善及新要求[C];2012年

10 遲東軍;張瑞禎;;非法證據(jù)排除的實(shí)務(wù)研究[A];第八屆國(guó)家高級(jí)檢察官論壇論文集：證據(jù)制度的完善及新要求[C];2012年

相關(guān)重要報(bào)紙文章 前10條

1 記者 徐育　通訊員 王成玉;“非法證據(jù)排除規(guī)則試點(diǎn)項(xiàng)目”在鹽城啟動(dòng)[N];江蘇法制報(bào);2009年

2 李曉雯　江陰市檢察院提供;如何在司法實(shí)踐中 適用非法證據(jù)排除規(guī)則[N];江蘇法制報(bào);2009年

3 中國(guó)政法大學(xué)訴訟法學(xué)研究院副院長(zhǎng) 教授 博士生導(dǎo)師 楊宇冠;執(zhí)行《非法證據(jù)排除規(guī)定》應(yīng)澄清兩個(gè)問(wèn)題[N];檢察日?qǐng)?bào);2010年

4 記者 唐亞南;非法證據(jù)排除規(guī)則實(shí)施取得重要進(jìn)展[N];人民法院報(bào);2011年

5 胡亮亮;非法證據(jù)排除規(guī)則中的難點(diǎn)和對(duì)策[N];江蘇經(jīng)濟(jì)報(bào);2011年

6 中國(guó)人民公安大學(xué)博士后 中國(guó)應(yīng)用法學(xué)研究所副研究員 余茂玉;尋找非法證據(jù)排除制度的平衡點(diǎn)[N];人民法院報(bào);2012年

7 曹杰 丁國(guó)棟 李娜;非法證據(jù)排除規(guī)則的適用弊端[N];江蘇法制報(bào);2012年

8 田方;“非法證據(jù)排除”有待探索和完善[N];人民公安報(bào);2012年

9 ;直擊北京“非法證據(jù)排除”第一案[N];人民代表報(bào);2012年

10 記者 劉曉燕 通訊員 楊清惠;實(shí)體審理前先啟動(dòng)非法證據(jù)排除程序[N];人民法院報(bào);2012年

相關(guān)博士學(xué)位論文 前3條

1 謝佳宏;非法證據(jù)排除規(guī)則比較研究[D];中國(guó)政法大學(xué);2007年

2 楊宇冠;非法證據(jù)排除規(guī)則研究[D];中國(guó)政法大學(xué);2002年

3 杜學(xué)毅;中國(guó)非法證據(jù)排除規(guī)則構(gòu)建研究[D];吉林大學(xué);2013年

相關(guān)碩士學(xué)位論文 前10條

1 余小平;刑事非法證據(jù)排除規(guī)則研究[D];蘇州大學(xué);2009年

2 武佳佳;刑事非法證據(jù)排除規(guī)則研究[D];復(fù)旦大學(xué);2010年

3 李佑琪;中國(guó)語(yǔ)境下的非法證據(jù)排除規(guī)則研究[D];重慶大學(xué);2010年

4 戴麗;我國(guó)非法證據(jù)排除規(guī)則的適用困境與出路[D];中國(guó)政法大學(xué);2011年

5 白瑞麟;非法證據(jù)排除例外研究[D];內(nèi)蒙古大學(xué);2011年

6 谷敏剛;非法證據(jù)排除規(guī)則問(wèn)題研究[D];吉林大學(xué);2005年

7 霍太穩(wěn);非法證據(jù)排除規(guī)則研究[D];山東大學(xué);2006年

8 肖晗;非法證據(jù)排除規(guī)則研究[D];湖南師范大學(xué);2002年

9 張華;刑事非法證據(jù)排除規(guī)則問(wèn)題的研究[D];中國(guó)政法大學(xué);2004年

10 趙犁;我國(guó)非法證據(jù)排除規(guī)則研究[D];湘潭大學(xué);2011年

本文編號(hào)：1458035