【作者】 吕卫华；

【导师】 刘金友；

【作者基本信息】 中国政法大学 ， 诉讼法学， 2007， 博士

【摘要】 本文主要探讨三个问题，即诉讼中是否应当追求真实、诉讼中能否追求到真实以及能否以真实作为认定事实标准。在探讨认定事实标准问题之前，探讨了一个前提性问题即能否绝对确定关于案件事实的认识的真实性。在探讨这四个问题之前，探讨了三个更具前提性的问题，即诉讼认识、诉讼证明与真实这三个概念以及相关理论问题。之后，对我国诉讼法学界关于真实问题的几种观点进行了介绍与分析。认识、命题等有真假问题。“真”即“真实”，指的是认识、命题等真值负荷者与它所揭示、描述、表达的对象的符合。当“真理”概念指真的认识、理论时，不能将“真理”与“真实”概念混用。“真”是客观的，“真”的存在以及“真”是什么，不以人的意志为转移，所以，真实就是客观真实。认识、命题等有真假问题，一个认识或曰命题，它或者是真的，或者是假的，如果它符合它所揭示、描述的对象，它就是真的，这个“真”就是客观真实；如果它不符合它所揭示、描述的对象，那它就是假的，而没有其他可能。认识都是一定程度的，认识有程度之分；当“真理”指真的认识、理论时，“真理”也有程度之分，如绝对真理与相对真理。但认识有程度，不等于“真”有程度，“真”没有程度之分。认为“真”有程度之分，必然面临或带来一系列无法克服的矛盾。真就是真，假就是假，非真即假，非假即真。在诉讼尤其是刑事诉讼中，应当追求真实，而且，多数情况下能够追求到真实。这里的“真实”就是客观真实。诉讼中，关于案件事实的认识，以及认定事实主体认定的“事实”——实际上也是关于案件事实的认识，它或者是真的，或者是假的，如果它不符合客观实际，它就是假的；如果它符合客观实际，它就是真的，这个“真”就是客观真实。但是，在具体的案件中，虽然有时通过实践的证伪能够使认定事实主体绝对确定某个关于案件事实的认识就是假的，但由于案件事实不复存在，不管是通过诉讼证明，还是通过实践检验，都不能使认定事实主体绝对确定客观的案件事实是什么，不能绝对确定某个关于案件事实的认识就是符合客观的案件事实的，不能绝对确定某个关于案件事实的认识就是真的。所以，不能以真实作为认定事实标准，作为认定事实标准的，只能是认定事实主体内心对于诉讼认识真实性的某种程度的信念。对于刑事裁判来说，应当以“排除合理怀疑”作为认定有罪的标准。更多还原

【Abstract】 Cognitions and propositions may be true or false. In the article, "truth" represents "trueness", which means cognitions and propositions conform to the objects they reveal, characterize or express. When the concept of "truth" represents true cognitions and theories, we should not confuse the concepts of "truth" and "trueness"."Trueness" is objective. It exists and has certain meaning ,which can’t be changed by any individual’s own will. Therefore, trueness is objective trueness. But cognitions or propositions will be true or false. If it conforms to the objects it reveals or characterizes, it is true , and the trueness is objective trueness.Cognitions have different degrees. When "truth" represents true cognitions and theories, "truth" also has different degrees, such as absolute truth and relative truth. Nevertheless, the existing of degrees for cognitions does not mean "trueness" also has levels of degrees, or else an array of contradictions which can not be overcome will be confronted and brought about. Trueness is exactly trueness and falseness is precisely falseness.Truth should be pursued in litigations especially criminal litigations. Mostly the truth can be pursued.In litigations, if the cognitions for the objective facts and the judicial subjects’ cognizance of the reality——they are also the cognitions for theobjective facts——do not conform to the objective facts, they are false, orvice versa.In specific cases, although the judicial subjects sometimes can absolutely confirm a cognition for objective facts is false through falsification supported by practice, the objective facts and the trueness of cognitions can not be absolutely ascertained since the objective facts do not recur, regardless of lawsuit proof or testification by practice. Consequently, trueness should not be regarded as cognizance standard. The only suitable criterion is the belief on the factuality of the litigation cognizance in the innermost of the judicial subject.For criminal judgment, it is a reasonable selection to take "beyond reasonable doubt" as the standard of guilty verdict.更多还原