职权主义与审问制的逻辑——交叉询问技术的引入及可能性反思  

The Logic of Ex Officio Doctrine and Inquisitorial System:Discussion on Transplanting and Probability of Cross-examination

作　　者：施鹏鹏 Shi Pengpeng

机构地区：[1]中国政法大学证据科学研究院

出　　处：《比较法研究》2018年第4期55-67,共13页Journal of Comparative Law

基　　金：最高人民法院姜伟副院长所主持的国家社会科学研究基金重大项目"十八届三中全会以来我国刑事诉讼制度重大改革实施效果的实证研究"(项目批准号:17ZDA127)的研究成果

摘　　要：审问制源于欧洲中世纪甚至更早,最初仅是作为例外的存在,后来逐渐演变为职权主义的主要审判方式,一直延续至今。在审问制下,法官处于主导地位,指挥庭审的运行,并有权对证人进行询问,控辩双方须经法官同意方可对证人进行质证,处于较被动的地位,这与当事人主义下的交叉询问制度形成鲜明对比。在学理上,审问制主要立足裁判事实国家垄断的诉讼传统、实质真实的诉讼价值观以及以证实为导向的积极心证,这与交叉询问的内在机理存在较严重的冲突。因此尽管审问制也面临着一些批评,但职权主义各代表性国家对引入交叉询问均持十分谨慎的态度。中国亦奉行审问制传统,故引入交叉询问制度并不能解决时下控辩失衡、庭审虚化的现象,反而可能导致制度的排斥效应。因此,中国时下引入交叉询问制度的尝试既无必要,也无可能。Inquisitorial system, established as an ad hoc system, has becoming a major form of sentencing procedure today, which could be traced back to European medieval age, or even earlier times. The judges under the inquisitorial system play dominant roles as they can instruct how the court functions and have the authority to inquire witnesses. Both parties play rather passive roles as they need court＇ s approval to examine the witnesses in contrast to cross - examination in adversary system. In the- ory, inquisitorial system is mainly based on the procedural tradition： judging facts monopolized by state, the value of seeking substantial truth, and probative oriented positive mental impression. Therefore, fa- cing some criticisms on inquisitorial system though, representative inquisitorial countries hold prudent o- pinions on transplanting cross - examination. Since China pursues inquisitorial tradition as well, there is no room for cross - examination in solving the imbalance between prosecution and defense, neither can it deal with the mere skeleton of trial, or may even causes repulsive effect. Therefore, there is no need and possibility to draw cross -examination into current China.

关 键 词：审问制 交叉询问 法庭的证据 实质真实 积极心证 

分 类 号：D925.2[政治法律—诉讼法学]