非法证据排除规则的虚化与实化——以法律实用主义为指导的证据排除规则的出路  

Unreality and materialization of exclusion rule of illegally obtained evidence——the way out for the exclusion rule guided by the legal pragmatism

作　　者：宋远升[1] Song Yuansheng(East China University of Political Science and Law, 201620 Shanghai, China.)

机构地区：[1]华东政法大学,上海200042

出　　处：《证据科学》2017年第1期5-21,共17页Evidence Science

摘　　要：非法证据规则本身是作为刑事诉讼中限制国家权力而设计的实体性/程序性规则,其目的是为了调整侦控权力与被告人权利之间过于失衡的对比关系,从而达到被告人权利保障之目的。对于非法证据排除规则上述目的实现效果如何,司法中心主义或者审判中心主义的制度设计至关重要。在美国,证据排除规则基本运作良好,这有赖于上述权力/权利构架的有序及稳定。在我国,非法证据排除规则却呈现出与制度设计者预期不符的消极现象。这其中有非法证据排除规则制度设计方面存在缺失的因素,包括对非法证据"违法手段"界定模糊,以及上述缺失都与其背后的支撑性理论—审判中心主义及控辩平衡原理有着直接的勾连。因此,应当结合/溯及非法证据排除规则在我国运作失灵表象背后的制度设计及支撑性理论,以法律实用主义为指导原则确立我国行之有效的非法证据排除规则。The substantive and procedural exclusion rule is designed to limit state power in criminal proceedings, also to adjust the unbalanced relationship between the power of investigation agency and the fights of the accused aiming at achieving the objective of protection of the human fight of the defendant. On realizing the above purpose, the design of the system is very important for the judicial centralism or the trial centralism. In the United States, relying on orderly and stabilized design between power and rights, the exclusion rule basically works well. In China, the exclusion rule of illegally obtained evidence presents a negative phenomenon, which is not in conformity with the expectations of the system designer. Not only because of its system design flaws, including the vaguely defined ＂illegal means＂ to obtain evidence, and more importantly, the above defect has a direct connection with the absence of the trial centralism and the balance principle between the prosecution and the defense. Therefore, we should combine the system design with the supporting theory of the exclusion rule of illegally obtained evidence in our country, and establish the effective rule of evidence exclusion under the guidance of legal pragmatism.

关 键 词：非法证据排除规则 虚化 实化 法律实用主义 出路 

分 类 号：D915.13[政治法律—诉讼法学]