發(fā)布時(shí)間：2018-05-18 03:44

  本文選題：審前程序 + 非法證據(jù)排除　； 參考：《華東政法大學(xué)》2014年碩士論文

【摘要】：人大通過(guò)修改新刑訴法在立法的層面上確立了一種多層次的非法證據(jù)排除規(guī)則，但是在頒布施行的一年里，各地多起被平反錯(cuò)案屢見報(bào)端，受到各方關(guān)注，在這些備受矚目的案件中，均涉及到因?yàn)槭艿叫逃嵄乒┒�由此產(chǎn)生的非法證據(jù)排除問(wèn)題。例如浙江叔侄殺人案、河南李懷亮案，加上之前的北海案，趙作海案、聶樹斌案等等。這些冤假錯(cuò)案的頻發(fā)，說(shuō)明在司法實(shí)踐中非法取證現(xiàn)象泛濫，然而在調(diào)查取證以及審查起訴階段，都沒(méi)有有效地將這些非法證據(jù)及時(shí)排除，從而流入法庭庭審中成為定案的依據(jù)，嚴(yán)重侵害了犯罪嫌疑人、被告人的利益，破壞了我國(guó)司法制度的公正。新刑事訴訟法在增加的條文中明確規(guī)定了“在偵查、審查起訴、審判時(shí)發(fā)現(xiàn)有應(yīng)當(dāng)排除的證據(jù)的，應(yīng)當(dāng)依法予以排除，不得作為起訴意見、起訴決定和判決的依據(jù)。”這說(shuō)明偵查機(jī)關(guān)和檢察機(jī)關(guān)在法庭審判前的審前程序中就負(fù)有對(duì)非法證據(jù)排除的職責(zé)，但是對(duì)于審前非法證據(jù)排除新刑訴法的規(guī)定過(guò)于籠統(tǒng)，缺乏程序性內(nèi)容的要求。在本文中，基于希望通過(guò)非法證據(jù)排除規(guī)則在審前的良好運(yùn)作，偵查機(jī)關(guān)能夠促進(jìn)自身的的取證行為，此外，在審前排除非法獲取的證據(jù)，能夠有效在審判階段將庭審法官和來(lái)源不合法的證據(jù)之間形成屏障，阻隔兩者之間的聯(lián)系，使得法官對(duì)案件結(jié)果的判決避免產(chǎn)生預(yù)斷，保證刑事司法的公正。 本文運(yùn)用比較分析方法，通過(guò)對(duì)國(guó)外非法證據(jù)排除規(guī)則的立法現(xiàn)狀的比較分析，解讀法律條文的內(nèi)涵，同時(shí)得出對(duì)我國(guó)實(shí)施審前非法證據(jù)排除的啟示。另外，本文在論述司法實(shí)踐中非法證據(jù)排除規(guī)則實(shí)施現(xiàn)狀時(shí)，采用了實(shí)證研究的方法，引入具體的案例。 本文在寫作結(jié)構(gòu)上共分為導(dǎo)言和正文兩部分，導(dǎo)言主要介紹了本文的研究的目的與意義。正文分為四大部分，第一部分是對(duì)我國(guó)審前非法證據(jù)排除規(guī)則的概述，，非法證據(jù)的概念，非法證據(jù)排除規(guī)則的立法考察與司法現(xiàn)狀的介紹。認(rèn)為我國(guó)審前非法證據(jù)排除規(guī)則正處于尷尬的處境。 第二部分介紹國(guó)外非法證據(jù)排除規(guī)則的立法現(xiàn)狀，通過(guò)對(duì)英美法系國(guó)家和大陸法系國(guó)家的對(duì)比分析，從而解讀出對(duì)我國(guó)審前非法證據(jù)排除的范圍的啟示。 第三部分介紹了審前非法證據(jù)排除規(guī)則的必要性。筆者主要通過(guò)對(duì)程序正義、審判公正、訴訟效率以及權(quán)利限制的法理分析，進(jìn)而對(duì)審前公安機(jī)關(guān)和檢察機(jī)關(guān)排除非法證據(jù)的必然性加以論證，最后得出，在審前偵查階段和審查起訴階段排除非法證據(jù)的積極作用，也是順應(yīng)我國(guó)宏觀司法體制的客觀需要。 第四部分是本文的重點(diǎn)，筆者通過(guò)對(duì)審前公安機(jī)關(guān)和檢察機(jī)關(guān)對(duì)非法證據(jù)排除的問(wèn)題進(jìn)行討論，主要是公安機(jī)關(guān)非法證據(jù)排除程序的啟動(dòng)主體、非法證據(jù)的審查主體、方式、結(jié)果及救濟(jì)，檢察機(jī)關(guān)的非法證據(jù)排除的啟動(dòng)、告知程序，非法證據(jù)的審查方式、結(jié)果及救濟(jì)。本文立足于對(duì)審前非法證據(jù)排除規(guī)則的研究，期望審前非法證據(jù)排除規(guī)定能得到良好的實(shí)行，發(fā)揮作用。
[Abstract]:The people's Congress has established a multi-level illegal evidence exclusionary rule on the legislative level by revising the new criminal procedure law. However, in the year of promulgation and implementation, many places have been repeatedly seen in the newspaper and received the attention of all sides. In these highly respected cases, all the illegal evidence produced by the extorting of the confession from torture has been involved. In addition to the problems, such as the murder of the Zhejiang nephew, the case of Li Huailiang in Henan, the previous Beihai case, the Zhao Zuohai case, the Nie Shu Bin case, and so on. The frequent occurrence of these false and wrong cases shows that the illegal evidence in the judicial practice is overflowing. However, the illegal evidence has not been effectively eliminated in time for the investigation and the examination and prosecution. In the court trial, it becomes the basis of the case, which seriously infringes on the interests of the criminal suspects and the defendants and destroys the justice of the judicial system in our country. The new criminal procedure law clearly stipulates that the evidence that should be excluded in the investigation, examination and prosecution and the trial should be ruled out in accordance with the law and may not be taken as an opinion of prosecution. This indicates that the investigation and procuratorial organs are responsible for the exclusion of illegal evidence in the pre trial procedure before the trial of the court, but the provisions of the new criminal procedure law for the pretrial illegal evidence are too general and lack of procedural content. In this article, it is based on the hope that the illegal evidence is excluded. In the good operation of the rules before the trial, the investigative organs can promote their own proof of evidence. In addition, to exclude the evidence obtained illegally before the trial, it can effectively form a barrier between the judge and the unlawful evidence at the trial stage and obstruct the connection between the two, so that the judge can avoid a prejudgment on the judgment of the case results. The impartiality of criminal justice.
In this paper, by comparing and analyzing the legislative situation of the exclusionary rule of illegal evidence abroad, this paper interprets the connotation of the provisions of the law, and at the same time draws the enlightenment to the implementation of the exclusionary rule of illegal evidence in our country. In addition, this paper adopts an empirical research method in the discussion of the implementation of the illegal evidence exclusion rules in judicial practice. Introduce specific cases.
This article is divided into the introduction and the two part of the text. The introduction mainly introduces the purpose and significance of the study. The text is divided into four parts. The first part is an overview of the exclusionary rule of the pretrial evidence in China, the concept of illegal evidence, the introduction of the legislative investigation and judicial status of the exclusionary rules of illegal evidence. The exclusionary rule of illegally obtained evidence before the state is in an awkward situation.
The second part introduces the legislative status of the exclusionary rule of illegal evidence abroad, and through the comparison and analysis of the countries of the Anglo American legal system and the civil law countries, the enlightenment to the scope of the exclusionary rule of illegal evidence in our country is explained.
The third part introduces the necessity of the exclusionary rule of pretrial illegal evidence. The author mainly through the legal analysis of procedural justice, justice of trial, litigation efficiency and the limitation of rights, and then demonstrates the inevitability of the pretrial public security organs and procuratorial organs to exclude illegal evidence, and the most later, in the stage of the pre trial investigation and the stage of examination and prosecution. Excluding the positive role of illegal evidence is also an objective need to comply with our macro judicial system.
The fourth part is the focus of this article. Through the discussion of the problem of the exclusion of illegal evidence by the public security organs and procuratorial organs before the trial, the main part is the main body of the illegal evidence exclusion procedure of the public security organs, the subject of the examination of illegal evidence, the way, the result and the relief, the starting of the illegal evidence exclusion of the procuratorial machine, the informing procedure and the illegal evidence. According to the method of examination, results and relief. This article is based on the study of the exclusionary rule of illegal evidence before the trial. It is expected that the exclusionary rule of illegal evidence before trial can be implemented well and play a role.
【學(xué)位授予單位】：華東政法大學(xué)
【學(xué)位級(jí)別】：碩士
【學(xué)位授予年份】：2014
【分類號(hào)】：D925.2

【參考文獻(xiàn)】

相關(guān)期刊論文 前6條

1 樊崇義;;“兩個(gè)證據(jù)規(guī)定”理解與適用中的幾個(gè)問(wèn)題[J];證據(jù)科學(xué);2010年05期

2 詹建紅;;檢察機(jī)關(guān)排除非法證據(jù)的制度建構(gòu)[J];法商研究;2012年03期

3 卞建林;;鑄證據(jù)基石,促司法公正[J];法學(xué)雜志;2010年07期

4 王迎龍;;非法證據(jù)排除規(guī)則適用范圍探討——兼論《辦理刑事案件排除非法證據(jù)若干問(wèn)題規(guī)定》[J];江蘇警官學(xué)院學(xué)報(bào);2010年03期

5 黃利;兩大法系非法證據(jù)排除規(guī)則比較研究[J];河北法學(xué);2005年10期

6 謝佑平;;檢察機(jī)關(guān)與非法證據(jù)排除[J];中國(guó)檢察官;2010年21期

本文編號(hào)：1904245