论对抗式刑事审判

【作者】 李昌盛；

【导师】 孙长永；

【作者基本信息】 西南政法大学 ， 诉讼法学， 2008， 博士

【摘要】 本论文共由绪论和四章所组成,每章内容除正文外,还有引言和各章小结。绪论部分以西方学者的著述为基础,分析了不同语境下对抗式刑事审判的含义及特征。按照本文的归纳,对抗式刑事审判至少包括以下四种不同的内涵:字面意义上的竞技式司法、比较法意义上的普通法系审判、技术意义上的对审式审判和控辩主导式审判、理想类型意义上的纠纷解决式审判。对抗式刑事审判运用在不同的语境下往往具有不同的内涵,但是各自又有各自的不足之处。字面意义上的竞技式司法是对对抗式刑事审判的生动比喻,给人以一目了然的直观感,以其作为学术分析和研究的工具缺乏严谨性且容易产生误导。把对抗式刑事审判等同于普通法系刑事审判是目前国内学者最为常见的观点,西方学者也曾如此理解对抗式刑事审判,但是由于区别于两大法系刑事审判的特征因各自法制的不断演进而无法再加以准确地概括,这种理解显得陈旧且缺乏准确性。把对抗式刑事审判理解为技术意义上的控辩参与型审判,能够与历史上的纠问式诉讼形成对比,也是对当今世界各法治国家刑事审判共有特征的揭示,正是由于它具有超越于法系的普适性,所以它不仅无法作为比较研究的工具,而且忽视了英美法系刑事审判与部分大陆法系国家刑事审判的不同之处。控辩主导型审判和纠纷解决型审判是两个理想的审判模型,它们都借鉴了社会科学研究中的理想类型方法,摆脱了法系的纠缠,具有逻辑严密性和科学性。之所以得出两种不同的理想型审判,是因为二者的标准不同,前者是以正式的法庭审判活动中的权力配置为标准,凡是由控辩双方占主导性地位的则是对抗式刑事审判,后者则以刑事审判的目的为标准,凡是以解决纠纷为目标的则是对抗式刑事审判。控辩主导型审判是对当今英美法系正式的陪审团审判技术进行高度概括后而得出的,具有一定的合理性,但是他无法合理地解释英美法系占绝对多数的有罪答辩式审判或答辩交易式审判。纠纷解决型审判能够弥补上述缺陷,不过由于它把制度与目的的关系单一化,难以解释其他制度在化解纠纷时能够起到等价于甚至优越于对抗式刑事审判的现实。参酌最后两种定义的合理部分,本文将对抗式刑事审判界定为由控辩双方当事人及其律师主导且在严格规则规范下的审判,裁判者在该程序中通过理性的方法判断指控的犯罪事实是否成立。第一章从历史的维度考察了对抗式刑事审判制度在英国的产生及发展,并以意大利为样本叙述了对抗制在该国艰辛的移植历程。本文认为,司法决斗与对抗式审判具有外在表现形式的相似性,但是从对抗式刑事审判在英国的诞生史来看,决斗式审判同近代的对抗式刑事审判并不具有任何历史的必然联系。其一,决斗式审判更为盛行的欧洲大陆在废除了司法决斗后,取而代之的不是对抗式审判,而是纠问式审判;其二,英国在以陪审团审判取代了决斗式审判后,早期的陪审团审判也是一种“准纠问式”的审判。所以,对抗式刑事审判并非决斗式审判历史演进的结果,二者之间的联系是“概念上的”而不是“历史上的”,是“修辞上的”而不是“现实的”。陪审团审判制度的确立为英国开辟了一条不同于大陆法系国家的法制发展道路,为对抗式刑事审判制度的产生提供了可能性。不过,对抗式刑事审判与陪审团并无逻辑上的必然联系,因为对抗式审判强调的是控辩双方对程序的主导性,至于审判的主体是职业法官还是外行的陪审团则在所不问。由于陪审团和法官职能的分离、陪审团裁判的不可预测性、陪审团对言辞口头证据的偏好以及陪审团审判对集中审理的依赖,使陪审团制成为对抗式审判最具血缘亲近性的制度之一。真正使英国最终走上对抗式审判之路的并不是陪审团,而是法庭审理的“律师化”。直到17世纪末期《叛国罪审判法》的出台,英国近代早期对重罪的审理方式为无律师的被告人“说话式审判”。在这种审判方式下,因为不允许辩护律师的参与,强调被告人作为证据来源的作用,赋予法官既当裁判者又当辩护人的双重职能,等等,所以被告人不仅无权保持沉默,也无法保持沉默。因禁止律师为被告人辩护而导致司法不公的弊端,在1678年至1688年间的几个重大叛国罪案件的审判中暴露得淋漓尽致。1696年的《叛国罪审判法》,将原先只有控告方单方面享有的权利,如强制证人出庭作证权、宣誓作证权、律师帮助权等,扩大到了被告人身上,使对抗制得以在叛国罪审判中建立起来。在18世纪初期,英国的律师开始大规模地介入到重罪控诉事务,由于控诉的律师化和控方伪证现象的频繁曝光,英国开始允许被告人的辩护律师出庭从事交叉询问工作,以实现控辩之间的平衡和揭露虚假证词。随着律师对庭审控制力的加强,被告人的证人角色和辩护人角色得以分离,沉默权也由此获得真正的确立;同时随着律师权力的扩张,在客观上促成了法官角色的变化,打破了法官作为辩护人的神话,使法官得以被动听审;此外,法庭审理的律师化使英国的证据规范由不统一的司法惯例慢慢地演变为严格的法律规则。无律师的被告人“说话式审判”终于演变成为审查控方指控是否成立的对抗式刑事审判。对抗式刑事审判之所以在英国而不是其他欧洲国家诞生,除了上述制度内的因素外,还与特定的历史条件相关:“生而自由”的英国人是政治条件,程序优先的观念是法律文化条件,发达的律师制度是制度条件。20世纪中期以后,为了解决日益增长的犯罪率和有限的司法资源之间的矛盾,提升司法的公信力,保护特殊案件中受害人和证人的利益,在“法律和秩序”政策的导向下,英国政府和立法机关对其刑事司法制度进行了大幅度的改革。对抗式刑事审判在英国呈现出衰落的迹象,这表现在:有罪答辩制度的盛行和对抗式刑事审判的边缘化,审判中心主义的衰退,证据规则的宽松化,限制陪审团审判的适用范围,限制被告人的沉默权和对质诘问权等。为了提升效率和民主性,意大利于1988年移植了对抗制,对其传统的审问式诉讼进行了当事人主义化改造,表现在:废除预审法官制,确立检察官的当事人地位和对席调查原则;建立双重卷宗制以阻断侦审之间的联系,实现庭审法官的中立性和被动性;建立严格的证据排除规则以实现审判中心主义;以交叉询问作为法庭调查的主要技术,赋予控辩双方对庭审的主导权。由于有组织犯罪的猖獗、法定起诉制和实体真实的传统理念等,意大利改革者的努力几乎被意大利宪法法院的判决一步步蚕食殆尽。意大利立法机关在1999年对宪法第111条进行了修改,为对抗制在意大利的确立奠定了宪法基础。就目前来看,改革派赢得了胜利。意大利的经验告诉我们:移植对抗式审判并非单纯的审判方式改造,而是进行全方位的整体改革;具有大陆法系传统的国家在移植对抗制之后必将经历诉讼价值观的冲突和磨合过程;进行对抗式审判的移植并非彻底地美国化,而是在吸收对抗制精神的基础上对英美的制度和技术进行本土化改造。第二章将对英国和美国的刑事审判制度进行比较,该章不仅将两国放置于同一框架下以与法、德等国的刑事审判进行“外部比较”,而且还深入到法系内部对英美的刑事审判进行全方位的“内部比较”。本文认为,对抗式刑事审判不是英美法系刑事审判的同义语,不过作为对抗式审判的源头国和最为坚定的继承者,英国和美国的正式陪审团审判迄今为止还是最为接近对抗制理想型的审判方式。这主要体现在二者分享着如下共同特征:二分式的法庭和二步式的庭审,以审查控方案件是否成立作为审判的焦点,控辩双方在审判中的主导性地位,严格区分控方案件和辩方案件,以交叉询问作为调查案件事实的主要手段,辅之以书面证据和物证的出示,等。但是两国在对抗程度上存在着差异,美国的审判可称为“超级对抗制”,英国则为“温和对抗制”。美国的刑事审判中控辩双方对程序的控制力在总体上要超过英国,从陪审员的遴选到对证人的交叉询问再到最终的总结陈词等方面,美国的律师可以通过程序性规则的运用对最终的结果施加巨大的影响。相较于英国控辩双方在法庭上的节制,英国的法官在认定事实方面比美国法官要更有影响力,这突出表现在英国法官在证据可采性(包括传闻证据、品格证据、非法证据等)上享有更大的裁量权以及法官的总结和评论证据权。被告人在英国庭审上的“待遇”比不上美国的被告人,除了被告人在英国可以享有说“最后一句话”的权利外,从被告人的席位设置、被告人沉默权所受到的限制,“第一证人”的作证顺序,到证据规则的宽松、对交叉询问权的限制、开头陈述的推迟和限制、证人接受反询问时的“反驳和解释权”、辩护律师的节制等方面,无不显示出英国的被告人面临着比美国被告人更大的定罪风险。导致两国对抗程度上出现差异的原因主要在于两国律师制度上的不同和法律价值观的不同。第三章将以价值相对论来研究对抗式刑事审判的优点,并从经济、政治和文化基础来论证对抗式刑事审判的正当性。本文认为,对抗式刑事审判在真实发现方面的价值在于:一方面可以它有效地抵制裁判者先入为主地形成不利于被告人的偏见;另一方面它能够充分激励双方当事人去收集对各自有利的信息。对抗式刑事审判在程序的内在价值方面体现在:它充分地保障了事实认定者的中立性并能够最大限度地实现当事人对程序的参与。对抗式刑事审判在权利保障方面的价值则在于:它可以有力地保障被告人的消极自由不受国家机关的任意侵犯。但是我们不能由此得出对抗式刑事审判就是最有利于发现真实、最体现程序公正和最有利于保障人权的制度。无论是从程序的外在价值还是从程序的内在价值看,对抗式刑事审判并不绝对地优越于非对抗式审判。英美两国之所以在历史上较为亲睐于对抗式刑事审判方式是因为英美两国具有不同于法、德等国的经济、政治和文化基础。如果用一个词语来概括这个基础,那就是古典自由主义。它在经济上表现为自由放任主义的经济形态,在政治上表现为政府有限主义和政治多元主义,在文化上表现为对权力的不信任。古典自由主义与对抗式刑事审判具有内在的契合性。随着古典自由主义的式微和新自由主义的兴起,英美的古典型对抗式刑事审判慢慢地转变为现代型对抗式刑事审判。现代型对抗式刑事审判不仅通过福利性的法律援助制度逐渐消除了古典型对抗式刑事审判形式平等实质不平等的弊端,还通过建立和完善证据开示制度实现了控辩双方的资源互享并在一定程度上增强了审判发现实质真实的能力,而且还重新设定了刑事审判控辩审三方的角色和相互关系,如强调检察官的公正执法义务、对被告人自治权的适当限制、裁判者对程序的适度干预。第四章以四十份庭审笔录为基础,辅之以《中国法律年鉴》、新闻报道、访谈记录等资料,对我国“控辩式审判”的运作现状展开实证研究,从多个角度对实证结论进行解释,并在评论学界观点的基础上指出中国未来刑事审判的改革方向及具体方案。本文认为,我国的立法机关于1996年在吸收了对抗式刑事审判合理因素的基础上,创设了“控辩式审判”方式,以解决庭审走过场的弊端和实现控辩审职能的分化,其目标值得肯定。不过,从司法实践来看,改革者的目标并没有得到实现。我国的刑事审判在实际运作上是一种没有对抗的被告人“说话式审判”,具体表现在:庭审上趋于消极但不中立的法官、单方面主导审判的公诉人、作为法庭“主角”的被告人、“说话权”受限的量刑辩护人和法庭调查的书面化等。由此导致我国刑事审判制度的双高现象:高效率和高定罪率。刑事审判制度的“控辩式”改造之所以失败的原因是多方面的,它既有社会现实方面的原因,也有司法制度和文化方面的原因。社会现实方面的原因至少有:曲线攀升的犯罪率和“严打”刑事政策、律师辩护的高风险和“法官型”人才的法学教育模式。司法制度方面的原因至少有:笔录卷宗式裁判方式、以口供为中心的印证证明模式、弱小的辩护权和行政化运作的司法程序。文化方面的原因至少有:对权力的信任和和合文化。但是,我们不能因此否定当初的改革方向,加强刑事审判的对抗性,建立适合中国的适度对抗制不仅具有必要性,而且具有现实可行性。在具体设计改革方案时,不仅应当注意贯彻最低限度的刑事司法国际准则,吸收英美意日等国刑事司法制度中的合理因素,而且还应当充分照顾到中国的现实国情。单纯地进行审判制度的改革是难以达到预期目标的,1996年刑事审判方式改革的失败就是一个例证。为此,还必须进行相关制度的配套改革,并需要司法人员转变诉讼观念,还需要公诉人和辩护人不断地加强论辩技巧的培养和提高,等等。更多还原

【Abstract】 This Ph.D. dissertation has four chapters besides an introduction, and each chapter consists of an introduction of itself, the main part and a conclusion.On the basis of western scholars’ writings, the introduction of the dissertation analyses the meanings and characteristics of adversary criminal trial in different contexts. There are at least four different explanations of adversary criminal trial: sporting theory of justice from the perspective of wording, Anglo-American criminal trial from the perspective of comparative law, adversary principle trial and party-dominated trial from the perspective of trial proceeding art, and conflict-solving trial from the perspective of ideal type. Sporting theory of justice is a vivid rhetoric of adversary criminal trial and can give us an unforgettable impression, but it cannot be used as a research tool because of its inexactness and misleading effect. Because the common dominator of common law and civil law system in criminal trial cannot correctly be summarized easily today, looking adversary criminal trial as Anglo-American criminal trial was old-fashioned and lost accuracy. Considering adversary criminal trial as adversary principle trial can generalize the common feature of modem trial in western countries that rule of law, but it cannot be used as a tool for comparative research and neglects some different characteristics between common law system and some continental Europe countries. Party-dominated trial and conflict-solving trial are two ideal models, they have the advantages of disentangling in law systems and being scientific. Party-dominated trial is generalized from common law’s criminal jury trial, though it has some reasonableness it can not justify the phenomenon of guilty plea or plea bargain. Conflict-solving trial can make up such deficit, but it too swiftly makes one-way relation between system and its aim. Considering the afore-mentioned last two definitions, the dissertation defines adversary criminal trial as a trial ideal that strictly regulated by procedural rules and dominated by parties, the role of fact-finder in such trial is to adjudicate whether the fact indicted is true or not.Chapter one explores the origin and development of adversary criminal trial in England and its transplantation in Italy. It is proclaimed that although judicial duel had some similarities with adversary trial it had no direct relation with the origins of adversary criminal trial in England. Jury trial system gave England a new choice to select its path of trial, but the real incentive that caused the appearance of adversary criminal trial was not jury but lawyerization of courtroom. Until the end of 17 century, the trial model in England was still lawyer-free accused-speaks trial. The defects in such trial were appearing in a series of treason cases between 1678 and 1688, which made legislature in England to enact Treason Trial Act of 1696. Thus, adversary criminal trial was established in treason cases. By the 1730s, prosecution was becoming ever more the province of lawyers and of a questionable corps of reward-seeking thief-takers. By allowing defense counsel to cross-examine prosecution witnesses, the judges attempted to correct for the imbalance that had opened between the unaided accused and the professionals. In addition to allowing felony defendants to have the assistance of counsel, the judges created the law of criminal evidence to provide safeguard at the trial level. As lawyers took increasing command of the conduct of the trial, they diminished the courtroom roles of both the accused and the trial judge which made adversary criminal trial established in felony cases. There were three conditions which helped adversary criminal trial finally erected in England but not continental Europe: liberalism politics and ideal of remedies proceed rights and developed lawyer system. After mid 20th century, the government and legislature of England made rapid strides to reform criminal justice system in order to facilitate crime control and reestablish public confidence in judicial system and protect vulnerable victims and witnesses. The adversary criminal trial wan on the wane which embodied in following phenomena: the prosperousness of plea bargain and marginalized adversary trial, decline of trial-centered system, relaxation of criminal evidence rules, restriction of jury trial and right to silence and right to confront and examine hostile witnesses. In order to promote efficiency and elevate democracy, Italy transplanted adversary system in 1988. Because of rampancy of organized crimes and compulsory prosecution system and material truth ideal, reformer’s effort was nibbled away by constitutional court of Italy. In 1999, the legislature of Italy amended Article 111 in constitution which formed the constitutional basis of adversary system. Until now the reformers win.Chapter two compares the trial system between England and US. Comparing with civil law countries like France and Germany, these two countries’ jury trial has four common features: bifurcation of court and two-steps proceeding, the focus of trial is to test prosecution’s case, dominating role of prosecution and defense at trial, strict differentiation of prosecution’s case and defense’s case, using cross-examination as the most important method to find the truth. There are some difference in contesting level between these two countries, while US can be labeled as Supra-Adversary-System and England as Mild-Adversary-System. In US, prosecutors and defense lawyers could manipulate the trial proceeding and result more heavily than their Britain counterpart. The judges in England are more actively participating in truth finding process and influencing the result than American ones. Except having the right to say the last word, the defendants in Britain criminal court cannot have protection such as non-reference when proclaiming their rights to silence and the rights to choose when to testify etc. which American defendants could have. The reason that causes these differences is that there is some distinctness in their own lawyer system and law culture.Chapter three analyses the value and legitimacy of adversary criminal trial. Truth finding value of adversary criminal trial lies in that on one side it can effectively prohibit the judicators from forming prejudice that disadvantage the defendant on the other side it can give parties enough incentives to find most beneficial information. Procedural value of adversary criminal trial lies in that it could realize the truth-finders disinterestedness and fully participation of parties. Rights protection value of adversary criminal trial lies in that it could strongly protect the citizen’s freedom from government invasion. But the values of adversary criminal trial are relative and not absolutely better than non-adversary system. Because the economy and politic system and culture in Anglo-American law were not same with Continental Europe in history, Anglo-American chose the path of adversarial system. The basis of adversary system was classical liberalism which was embodied in laissez-faire economy and limited government and political pluralism and the culture of power distrust. As classical liberalism was replaced by new liberalism, adversarial criminal trial slowly evolved from classical adversarialism into modern adversarialism. Modern adversarialism not only provided welfare treatment to indigent defendants through legal assistance system and emphasized collaboration of parties though evidence disclosure system, but also reshaped the roles in courtroom which highlighted the prosecutor’s duty to do justice and judge’s obligation to moderately intervene into trial matters and appropriately restricted the self-autonomy of defendant.Based on 40 courtroom records, chapter four empirically studies China’s mainland public-prosecutor-and-defense-dominated trial. Although in 1996 the legislature of our country absorbed some adversary system elements into trial, reformer’s aim had not realized in reality. In fact, the criminal trial in our country is non-adversarial accused-speaks trial, which is embodied in more passive and un-neutral judges and one side dominating role of public prosecutor and treating the accused as main actor in courtroom and sentence defense lawyer with limited speaking-rights and fact investigation in written form. Non-adversary accused-speaks trial caused two phenomena in China: high efficiency and high conviction rate. There were a lot of reasons which can explain this trial system reform failure. Quickly climbing crime rate and high hazards of defense lawyer’s work and judge-ability law education model are social reality reasons. Dossier-dependant adjudication model and confession-centered proof verification mode and weak defense rights and administrative-style judicial process are judicial system reasons. The cultural reasons are trust of power and social harmony. We should not negate the aim of reformers because of these problems, strengthening antagonism of criminal trial and establishing appropriate adversary system that is suited in our country’s conditions not only are necessary but also feasible. In order to realize our aim, we should not put emphasis only on trial proceeding but need to reform corresponding system and change the ideals of judicial staff, etc.更多还原