论多元主体对非法证据的排除  

The Exclusion of Illegal Evidence by Multi-Subjects

作　　者：孙末非[1] 

机构地区：[1]四川大学法学院,四川成都610064

出　　处：《四川大学学报（哲学社会科学版）》2013年第2期137-148,共12页Journal of Sichuan University：Philosophy and Social Science Edition

摘　　要：新刑事诉讼法将公检法三机关作为非法证据的排除主体,绩效考核机制、内部审核监督机制和过错执法责任追究机制分别提供了程序操作平台、组织保障措施和内在排除动力,使该制度在中国具备了相应的适用空间。短期来看,该制度不会大量催生不当"洗白"证据的情形,有助于激励办案人员形成追诉犯罪与保障人权并重的心理意识和行动自觉;长期来看,该制度在符合目前分段式追诉模式的同时,并不会显著阻碍有效司法审查的建立,是利大于弊的制度选择。为提高该制度的适用性和正面效应,应制定非法证据排除标准的分层规则,明确各机关排除非法证据的具体时机,加强非法证据排除程序的口头化和公开性。The new criminal procedure law specifies public security organs, procuratorial organs and people＇s courts as the subjects of excluding illegal evidence. The performance evaluation mechanism, relatively mature internal quality audit mechanism and responsibility investigating system provide the procedural platform, the organizational security measures and the internal motivation respectively, making possible the application of this system in China. In the short term, this system will contribute to the formation of the officers＇ psychological consciousness and conscious action to balance prosecution of crimes and the protection of citizens＇ rights. Meanwhile, it won＇ t lead to a lot of cases where evidences are wrongly or purposefully bleached. In the long run, this system is more helpful than harmful, as it won＇t dramatically hinder the establishment of judicial review system while it fits the segmented prosecution mode. Overall, this system does more good than harm. In order to advance its applicability and positive effects, we should firstly enact layered standards for excluding illegal evidence; secondly, we need to clarify opportunity to exclude illegal evidence. Thirdly, we should enhance the orality and openness of exclusion procedures of evidence.

关 键 词：非法证据排除 多元主体 排除标准 排除程序 新刑事诉讼法 

分 类 号：DF713[政治法律—诉讼法学]