非法证据排除规则体系的合宪性调控  

The Constitutional Control of the Rule System of Exclusion of Illegal Evidence

作　　者：刘金松 LIU Jin-song(School of Criminal Justice,China University of Political Science and Law,Beijing 100088)

机构地区：[1]中国政法大学刑事司法学院,北京100088

出　　处：《中国刑警学院学报》2022年第5期39-47,共9页Journal of Criminal Investigation Police University of China

基　　金：2022年度中央级公益性科研院所基本科研业务费专项资金项目(编号:2022JB034)。

摘　　要：瑕疵证据和非法证据纠缠不清的症结在于合宪性视角的缺乏。在排除根据方面,“程序性制裁理论”无法为非法取证行为的被侵权人在权利补偿和救济方面提供融贯的解释,引入“公民宪法性权利”可以弥补这一缺陷。在排除范围方面,只有侵害公民宪法性权利的非法证据才应当予以排除,一般程序违法不应适用“非法证据排除”制度来规制,瑕疵证据并未侵犯公民的基本权利,不应当作为“非法证据”排除。在排除标准方面,针对言词证据适用“难以忍受的痛苦”之标准,以及针对实物证据适用“严重影响司法公正”之标准,有必要从“公民宪法性权利”的角度进行判断。未来,非法证据排除规则也应当向保护公民宪法性权利的方向进行体系化建构。The problem of the entanglement between flawed evidence and illegal evidence lies in the lack of the perspective of constitutionality.In terms of grounds for exclusion,the“procedural sanctions theory”cannot provide a coherent explanation for the rights compensation and relief of the infringed of illegal evidence collection,and the introduction of“citizen’s constitutional rights”can make up for this deficiency.In terms of the scope of exclusion,only illegal evidence that violates citizens’constitutional rights should be excluded.General procedural violations should not be regulated by the“illegal evidence exclusion”system.Defective evidence does not violate citizens’basic rights and should not be used as“illegal evidence”to be excluded.In terms of exclusion criteria,it is necessary to make judgments from the perspective of“citizens’constitutional rights”when applying the“unbearable suffering”standard for verbal evidence and the“severely affecting”standard for physical evidence.In the future,the rule of exclusion of illegal evidence should also be systematically constructed in the direction of protecting the constitutional rights of citizens.

关 键 词：非法证据排除 瑕疵证据 程序性制裁理论 合宪性解释 重复供述 

分 类 号：D925.2[政治法律—诉讼法学]