美国非法证据排除规则威慑功能的弱化——兼评赫尔英案对“善意例外”的扩张  

On the Weakening of Deterrence Function of Exclusionary Rule——And review on the expansion of good faith exception in Herring v.United States

作　　者：贺红强[1] 

机构地区：[1]广东医学院人文与管理学院,广东东莞523808

出　　处：《河北法学》2013年第4期134-143,共10页Hebei Law Science

摘　　要：美国2009年的赫尔英案创设了非法证据排除规则"善意例外"的新类型,即因客观上合理信赖其他警察部门记录而取得的非法证据不予以排除。赫尔英案对"善意例外"的扩张反映出非法证据排除规则威慑功能的弱化。回顾美国非法证据排除规则的发展历程,它的例外不断创设、威慑功能逐渐式微是贯穿其间的主线。反思非法证据排除规则,它在威慑警察违法方面具有内在局限性,本质是让全社会为警察的行为承担责任,惩戒警察个人才是防止违法取证的最有效途径。我国的非法物证排除规则以法官裁量排除为原则,以减少冤假错案为目的,有效遏制警察违法行为依然需要强化警察惩戒机制。A new type of good faith exception of exclusionary rule was created in Herring v. United States in 2009. In other words, when the illegal evidence is due to other police bureau ＇s record mistake, the exclusionary rule does not apply. The expansion of good faith exception in Herring v. United States reflects the weakening of deterrence function of exclusionary rule. Looking back the development history of exclusionary rule in the United States, regular patterns is as following： the exceptions of exclusionary rule are created constantly; the deterrence function of exclusionary rule weakens gradually. Reflect on the exclusionary rule, exclusionary rule has limitations in deterring police illegal behavior; its essence is to let the whole society responsible for police illegal behavior. Police disciplinary rules are the most effective way to prevent illegal evidence. Exclusionary rule of physical evidence is within the judges＂discretions in China. The purpose of Exclusionary rule is to reduce the misjudged cases in China, to deter the police illegal behavior, the police discipline system need to be strengthened.

关 键 词：非法证据排除规则 善意例外 赫尔英案 威慑警察违法行为 

分 类 号：D925.2[政治法律—诉讼法学]