法定证据制度辨误——兼及刑事证明力规则的乌托邦  

An Accurate Understanding on Legal Proofs Utopia of Rules of Weight on Criminal Evidences

作　　者：施鹏鹏[1,2] 

机构地区：[1]教育部,财政部"2011计划"司法文明协同创新中心 [2]中国政法大学证据科学教育部重点实验室

出　　处：《政法论坛》2016年第6期113-125,共13页Tribune of Political Science and Law

摘　　要：自十三世纪起,欧洲各主要国家的立法者相继在刑事证据立法上确立了十分精确的证明力等级体系,详细规定了每种证据形式的可采性、不同种类证据在诉讼中的证明力以及证据间出现证明力冲突时的优先取舍问题,即所谓的法定证据制度。法定证据制度在欧洲运行了数个世纪,受到了诸多质疑和批判,但不少反对意见系建立在对该制度误解的基础之上,应予以澄清。法定证据制度对中国时下的刑事证明力规则建构具有较强的反思意义。在本质上,刑事证明力规则便是将法官对证据的自由评价绝对客观化、立法化,这与刑事犯罪的偶发性及不可预期性有着根本的冲突。历史证明,立法者不可能在刑事诉讼中确立一套普适的证明力规则。In the 1200 s,the continental Europe established the system of Legal Proofs,where the law itself determines in advance the different methods of proof,as well as the degree of proof nessary or sufficent to warrant a punishment. Legal Proofs system has functioned during several centuries and was criticized sharply. However,some incisive criticisms are based on misunderstandings and need to be rectified. The system of legal proofs affords us a useful lesson,especially for the legal scholars who try to establish a set of rules of weight in criminal procedure. In nature,the rules of weight appear incompatible with the intellct of judges,and can not fit in with the investigation of crimes. The legislators can never set up a rigid proof system,mesuring beforehand the value of each evidence and warranting a guilty or innocent judgement.

关 键 词：法定证据制度 源起 误解 证明力规则 

分 类 号：D915.3[政治法律—诉讼法学]