【作者】 郭志远；

【导师】 杨宇冠；

【作者基本信息】 中国政法大学 ， 诉讼法学， 2008， 博士

【摘要】 刑事证明标准既是一个重大的理论问题,又是长期以来困扰司法实务部门的难题,结合我国刑事诉讼立法和实践,对该问题进行深入研究十分必要。要想界定刑事证明标准的概念,首先应明确刑事证明标准所适用的领域即刑事证明的概念及其特性,因此,刑事证明基本理论是研究的起点。由于刑事证明标准是一个多学科的问题,该项制度的确定,与秩序、效益等价值密切相关,为加深对其认识,运用交叉学科方法对之进行多维分析显得就很必要。刑事证明标准在适用主体、责任、对象及阶段上存在层次性,通过比较研究可以发现,我国刑事证明标准层次性立法存在缺陷,不符合诉讼规律,有完善的必要。两大法系有罪判决证明标准沿革及其特性告诉我们,证明标准是与一国诉讼文化传统、心理习惯密切相关的,移植该项制度应采取批判分析的态度,应结合我国诉讼实际,构建主客观相结合的、双重意义上的证明标准。有罪判决、公诉与逮捕是刑事诉讼中重要的诉讼行为,其事实要件设定得科学与否关涉犯罪事实的证明和人权保障,我国在这些制度的立法上虽具有一定优点,但也存在一定的缺陷,仍需借鉴国外立法先进经验,结合诉讼实际进行重新构建。论文共分八章,主要内容如下:第一章“刑事证明概述”。为全面深入认识刑事证明,该部分从证明概念入手,首先分析了刑事证明与诉讼证明及证明之间的关系,认为刑事证明是公安机关、人民检察院、当事人及其代理人、辩护人等证明主体在证明责任的作用和规制下,依照法定的程序,调查、收集、提供证据,对待证事实进行求证的诉讼活动。然后论述了刑事证明与查明、释明等邻近概念在证明标准要求上所存在的差别。最后探讨了不同种类的刑事证明与刑事证明标准之间的联系。第二章“我国刑事证明标准概念研究”。该部分从哲学视角,探讨了刑事证明标准与辩证唯物主义之间的联系在形式真实与实质真实、证明的层次性方面的体现;从基本概念、基本原理及形成原因等方面论证了刑事证明相对性原理,论述了其与刑事证明标准之间的内在联系。在考察、评析刑事证明标准历史沿革即迷信真实、规定真实、判断真实的基础上,评析了我国学界关于刑事证明标准的代表性观点,并主张从主客观相结合的角度对之进行了重新界定:证明主体在刑事诉讼过程中,运用证据,针对证明对象,进行证明所应达到的程度,该程度因诉讼阶段不同、证明对象不同,所呈现的层次性亦不同,在证据的质和量上要求也不同。第三章“刑事证明标准之多维分析”。该部分采用交叉学科的方法,对刑事证明标准这一重要制度进行了深入分析。从价值论角度分析了刑事证明标准所具有的社会秩序、公平、人权保障及法益衡量价值;从经济学角度,运用资源博弈理论、错误成本理论及道德成本理论分析了刑事证明标准的经济价值;从法文化角度探讨了诉讼文化与刑事证明标准之间的一般联系,考察了西方国家诉讼文化对其刑事证明标准的影响,剖析了我国传统和现代诉讼文化对刑事证明标准的影响,通过比较研究,思考了我国刑事证明标准完善的价值取向。第四章“刑事证明标准层次性研究”。该部分首先评析了我国刑事证明标准层次性的代表性观点,并主张刑事证明标准层次性,是指在广义的刑事证明过程中,即侦查、起诉、审判三个阶段,不同的证明主体,在不同的证明阶段,针对不同的证明对象,提供证据进行证明所应达到的不同程度;探讨了刑事证明标准层次性的理论基础,即证明主体、责任、对象及阶段任务的差异性;在考察域外立法与实践中刑事证明标准层次性的基础上,提出了完善我国该项制度的构想。第五章“两大法系有罪判决证明标准比较研究”。该部分主要从比较法角度考察了英美法系的“排除合理怀疑”及大陆法系的“内心确信”有罪判决证明标准的沿革及其内涵;分析了二者在认识论等方面具有一定的相似性,在证明程度等方面具有一定的差别及相互借鉴、融合的趋势;评析了两大法系刑事证明标准所具有诸如主观性和不确定性的缺陷,为我国批判吸收其立法、实践经验提供了理论铺垫。第六章“我国有罪判决证明标准研究”。该部分评析了我国立法上有罪判决证明标准特征及学界的代表性观点:客观真实说、主观真实说及法律真实说,并主张以事实的主客观性原理为基础,重构我国主客观相结合双重意义上的刑事证明标准,即“排除合理怀疑的唯一性”、“高度确信的优势证明”(例外情形),重点论述了我国构建死刑判决证明标准的理论基础、价值及障碍,建议将其量刑证明标准确定为“确定无疑的唯一性”。第七章“我国公诉证明标准研究”。该部分从比较法的角度,考察了两大法系的公诉证明标准,即英国的“预期可予定罪"、美国的“合理的根据”、德国的“有足够的事实根据”、法国的“充分的证据”和日本的“有犯罪嫌疑”,分析了两大法系公诉证明标准的共同特征,评析了我国公诉证明标准的优点和缺陷,提出应坚持高标准、客观性和可操作性原则完善我国该项制度,并建议将之确定为“证据确实、充分的唯一性”。第八章“我国逮捕证明标准研究”。该部分从比较法角度考察了两大法系的逮捕证明标准,即英国的“合理根据”、美国的“可成立理由”、德国的“逃亡嫌疑"和“急迫的犯罪嫌疑”、日本的“相当理由”和“充分理由”,分析了它们之间的共同特征,评价了我国逮捕证明标准所具有的客观性、层次性优点和模糊性、缺乏比例性缺陷,提出应坚持高标准、客观性、经济性原则完善我国该项制度,并建议将之确定为“充足证据证明有犯罪事实”和“紧迫的犯罪嫌疑”。更多还原

【Abstract】 The standard of criminal proof is a theoretic issue of the utmost concern,as well as a thorny problem bewildering China’s agencies of judicial practice.As a result of its close relationship with social order, beneficial results and other values,it is necessary to analyze it by an interdisciplinary means.The author maintains that a standard of proof amalgamating subjective and objective elements is supposed to be established in light of the standard of proof for guilty sentences based on both the Continental Law System and the Anglo-American Law System,as well as China’s judicial practice.Guilty sentences,public prosecution and arrest are significant acts performed according to criminal procedure,and the criteria of proof for them need to be reestablished in line with China’s actual criminal procedure.This dissertation falls into eight chapters as follows:ChapterⅠ,A brief introduction to the standard of criminal proof.This chapter analyzes the relationships between criminal proof,procedural proof and ordinary proof,gives the definition of criminal proof,expounds the disparities between the criteria of proof for such similar definitions as criminal proof and ascertainment(fact finding),and probes into the connection between different categories of criminal proof and the criteria of proof for them.ChapterⅡ,A study of the definition of China’s standard of criminal proof.It explains the relation between the standard of criminal proof and dialectical materialism,evaluates the representative opinions on the standard of criminal proof in China’s academic circles,and suggests the re-definition of the standard of criminal proof by means of combining subjective elements with objective elements.The degree of proof varies in gradation due to the differentiation in periods of procedure and objects of proof,as well as in the demand for the quality and quantity of evidence.ChapterⅢ,A multi-dimensional analysis of the standard of criminal proof.This chapter analyzes,by an interdisciplinary means,such values as social order,justice,human rights protection and economic benefits, dissects the impact of China’s traditional and contemporary culture of procedure on the standard of criminal proof,and elucidates the tendency for the consummation of China’s standard of criminal proof.ChapterⅣ,A research into the gradation of the standard of criminal proof.The chapter evaluates the representative opinions on the gradation of the standard of criminal proof in China.According to the author,the gradation of the standard of criminal proof indicates that during such procedural periods as criminal investigation,public prosecution and adjudication,the degree of proof varies according to different subjects, periods and objects of proof.Then the author explains the theoretic basis of the gradation of the standard of criminal proof,namely,the differentiation in the subjects,objects and burdens of proof,along with the tasks in various procedural periods.Finally,the author puts forward his proposal on the consummation of China’s gradation of the standard of criminal proof.ChapterⅤ,A comparative study of the standard of proof for guilty sentences in the Continental Law System and the Anglo-American Law System.This chapter reviews in retrospect "beyond reasonable doubt," which is the standard of proof for guilty sentences in the Anglo-American Law System,and "inner conviction," which is the standard of proof for guilty sentences in the Continental Law System,and analyzes the similarities and dissimilarities of the aforesaid two standard of proof,as well as their tendency to merge into one.ChapterⅥ,A study of China’s standard of proof for guilty sentences. It dissects the characteristics of China’s legislative standard of proof for guilty sentences,as well as the representative opinions from the academic circles,and advocates the reestablishment of China’s standard of criminal proof by integrating subjective elements with objective elements,namely, the "uniqueness beyond reasonable doubt," and the "predominant proof of high conviction(by way of exception)." ChapterⅦ,A study of China’s standard of proof for public prosecution.Based on probing into the standard of proof for public prosecutions in the Continental Law System and the Anglo-American Law System,such as prospect of conviction,probable cause,sufficient evidenc and suspicion,The author the advantages and disadvantages of China’s standard of proof for public prosecution,suggesting its being fixed as the "uniqueness based on reliable and sufficient evidence."ChapterⅧ,A study of China’s standard of proof for arrest.This chapter explores the standard of proof for arrest in the Continental Law System and the Anglo-American Law System,evaluates the merits (objectivity and gradation) and demerits(ambiguity and disproportionateness) of China’s standard of proof for arrest,and advocates its being fixed as "facts of crime being proved by sufficient evidence," and "emergency suspected crime."更多还原