刑事证据裁判中法官的自由裁量研究

【作者】 吴立德；

【导师】 李力；

【作者基本信息】 南京师范大学 ， 诉讼法学， 2002， 硕士

【摘要】 本文围绕证据裁判的活动方式和影响证据裁判活动的各种因素分析，试图从理论上探寻司法审判活动的规律，尤其是自由心证的本质内涵。从证据产生的动态过程分析其产生的深层次依据和价值理念，通过对制约证据评价活动的主客观因素分析证据规则本身所具有的包容性以及裁判主体在逻辑思维的认识决断过程所应具有的裁量弹性，论证其中的理性因素所在和理性活动保障。 作者认为自由心证的本质是裁判者主观认识上的自由，而不是任意决断的自由。自由心证为裁判者提供了能动的认识方法。裁判者的认识能力是经验、法律素养、洞察力、分析判断能力等因素综合积累的结果，它决定裁判者认知理性的高低。裁判者的认知理性在有限的诉讼时空中表现出非理性的认知因素和认知能力的缺陷。证据规则等客观制约因素正是对裁判者认知能力、行为能力的局限进行功能上的补强，通过规则制定防止裁判权过于集中而限制法官任意或滥用权力。从而强化了证据裁判的理性内涵，为公正裁判的实现提供保障。因此主体裁量尺度和客体裁量尺度的结合就成为必然。更多还原

【Abstract】 By analyzing the manner of adjudication through evidences and the factors influencing the adjudication, this thesis tries to explore the nature of judiciary proceedings, especially the essential connotation of the system of discretional evaluation of evidence. The internal basis and rational value of the production of evidences are discussed as seen from the dynamic production process. Then the inclusiveness of principles of evidences and the flexibility of judrcators’ adjudication is analyzed, with regard to the factors that restrict the evalution of evidences stand and how rational activities are guaranteed.The author holds that the system of discretional evaluation of evidence is the freedom of judicators’ subjective cognition, not the freedom of arbitrary adjudication. The degree of the judicators’ cognitive rationally relies on Some factors including working experience, legal accomplishments, discernment, and judging capability, so the judicators’ cognitive rationality may expose irrational cognition and defective cognitive ability. Principles of evidences, among other objective factor, are functionally remedial for the limitedness of the judicators’ ability in cognition and action. They are constituted to avoid the overcentralization of judicial power and to restrict the arbitration and abuse of Power, and they thus enhance the rational connotation of adjudication of through evidences and guarantee the actualization of impartial judgment. Therefore, it will necessarily end in the combination of both subjective and objective jurisdictional measures.更多还原