刑事证据排除的两种模式  

Two Modes of Excluding Criminal Evidence

作　　者：王超[1] 

机构地区：[1]北京师范大学刑事法律科学研究院,北京100875

出　　处：《现代法学》2013年第4期104-120,共17页Modern Law Science

基　　金：2012年教育部人文社会科学研究规划基金项目"刑事程序违法的定量分析"(12YJA820069)

摘　　要：根据排除规则的规范对象以及排除证据的法律后果和操作程序,刑事证据排除可以分为两种基本模式,即以规范证据能力为中心的美国排除模式和以规范证明力为中心的中国排除模式。美国模式与其陪审团审判、对抗制审判方式密切相关;中国模式则是一元制审判组织、探求案件事实真相、防止法官滥用自由裁量权的产物。尽管美国模式有助于维护程序的正当性和提高审判的效率,但是却付出了牺牲案件事实真相的代价。中国模式虽然有助于发现案件事实真相,但是过于强调案件事实真相,不仅导致严厉的审查判断规则难以得到执行,而且无法为非法证据排除规则提供适合的生长土壤。而且,以规范证明力为中心的方式来防止法官滥用自由裁量权,既不符合法理,又没有对症下药,甚至为法官滥用裁量权提供了新的机会。According to the regulated objects of exclusionary rules and the legal consequences and operational procedure of excluding evidence,the exclusion of criminal evidence can be divided into two modes,namely,American exclusionary modes centered on regulating the admissibility and Chinese exclusionary modes centered on regulating weight.American model closely relates to jury trial and the adversarial system.And Chinese model results from unitary courts,pursuit of truth,and prevention of the abuse of judges’ discretion.Although American model can help maintain procedural legitimacy and improve trial efficiency,this model pays for sacrificing the truth.In contrast,Chinese model can help search for the truth.However,excessive emphasis on the truth not only results in difficult implementation of the severe rules of examination and judgment but also fails to provide proper space for the exclusionary rule.Moreover,to prevent judges from the abuse of discretion by the mode centered on regulating weight fails to abide by the legal principles and put the actual situation into consideration,and then creating new possibilities for judges to abuse discretionary power.

关 键 词：刑事证据 排除规则 排除模式 

分 类 号：D925.2[政治法律—诉讼法学]