刑事诉讼事实形成机理探究  

On the Formation Mechanism of Criminal Procedural Fact

作　　者：杨波[1] Yang Bo

机构地区：[1]吉林大学法学院

出　　处：《中国法学》2022年第2期163-183,共21页China Legal Science

基　　金：2021年度国家社科基金重点项目“刑事诉讼事实形成机制研究”(项目批准号:21AFX014)的阶段性成果;2018年度国家社科基金重大项目“中国特色刑事证据理论体系研究”(项目批准号:18ZDA139)的阶段性成果。

摘　　要：以往的事实发现理论将裁判事实看成是单方反映和发现的结果,追求诉讼认识与客观实在的符合,是一种结果性事实观的体现。在现代刑事诉讼中,认识活动不能被简单地化约为主客体间的关系,法律事实是在诉讼活动主体间的行为和交互作用中生成的,是各诉讼认识主体共同建构的产物,建构性诠释了法律事实的形成机理。通过开放的程序建构出来的法律事实是一种程序性共识,以其作为裁判的基础,能够重建司法裁判的正当性。未来,我国刑事司法应打破结果性事实观的束缚,以理性、开放的程序性事实观为指引,进一步区分对抗式司法模式下的博弈性事实与合作式司法模式下的合意性事实在形成机理上的差异性,最终实现事实理论对刑事程序改革实践的引领。The previous fact discovery theory regards the judicial fact as the result of unilateral reflection and discovery,and pursues the conformity between litigation cognition and objective reality,which is the embodiment of the consequential fact concept.In modern criminal procedure,cognitive activities cannot be simplified as the relationship between subject and object.Legal fact is generated in the behavior and interaction between the subjects of litigation activities.It is the product of the joint construction of litigation cognitive subjects,and constructively interprets the formation mechanism of legal fact.The legal fact constructed through the open procedure is a procedural consensus.Taking it as the basis of judgment can rebuild the legitimacy of judicial judgment.In the future,criminal justice of China should break the shackles of the consequential fact concept,take the rational and open procedural fact concept as the guideline,further distinguish the differences in the formation mechanism between the game fact under the adversarial trial mode and the consensual fact under the cooperative justice mode,and finally realize the guidance of the fact theory to the practice of criminal procedure reform.

关 键 词：程序性事实观 程序性共识 博弈性事实 合意性事实 

分 类 号：D925.2[政治法律—诉讼法学]