论“两个证据规定”的三大突破与五个局限——以非法言词证据的证据能力为重心  

Three Breakthroughs and Five Insufficiencies of the Two Rules of Evidence

作　　者：林喜芬[1] 

机构地区：[1]上海交通大学凯原法学院,上海200240

出　　处：《现代法学》2011年第2期170-184,共15页Modern Law Science

基　　金：国家社科基金重点项目"中国特色社会主义司法制度研究"(10AFX003);上海市哲学社会科学规划项目"反恐打黑的特殊诉讼机制"(2010EFX005);上海交通大学晨星学者项目"非法证据排队规则的新近发展及中国前景"及文理交叉项目"计算机科学在刑事司法中的实践应用与法律规制"(10JCY09)

摘　　要：两高三部新近颁布的"两个证据规定"(《关于死刑案件审查判断证据若干问题的规定》与《关于办理刑事案件排除非法证据若干问题的规定》)重申了非法言词证据一般应予排除的原则,修订了非法言词证据的涵义及取证规范,确立了瑕疵证据一般不予排除的操作程式,是我国刑事证据制度改革的突破进展。同时,也存在对严格予以排除的"强制情形"例举不细致,对"诈术情形"的证据效力有待明确,被追诉人口供的排除原理亟需完善,取证禁止规定亟需更高位阶的人权法规范引导,特殊情形下非法言词证据的证据能力仍需补充等五大改革局限。面对这些制度局限,进一步的对策、变革与完善仍值得期待。The recently enacted two rules of evidence have reasserted the principle that illegally obtained testimony shall be excluded,and they have redefined the meaning of illegal testimony and the norms of evidence taken,and ascertained that normally defective evidence is not exclusive,which are deemed breakthroughs in the reform of China＇s criminal evidence system.However,criticism has also been invited as to their failure to illustrate specifically ＂confession under threat＂ that should be absolutely excluded,failure to explicitly address the effects of the evidence taken with ＂fraudulent devices,＂ failure to perfect the exclusion logics,failure to indicate that evidence rules should be made in the perspective of human rights and constitutional laws,and failure to state the weight of illegal testimony taken in exceptional circumstances,all of which are expected in the future to make a stepping stone to success.

关 键 词：两个证据规定 非法言词证据 证据能力 突破 局限 

分 类 号：D915.13[政治法律—诉讼法学]