非法证据排除的规范原理新论以“制裁—救济”为分析框架  

A New Theory on the Normative Rationales of Exclusionary Rules Taking"Sanction—Remedy"as the Analytical Framework

作　　者：赵常成 Zhao Changcheng

机构地区：[1]中国人民大学法学院

出　　处：《中外法学》2023年第1期241-259,共19页Peking University Law Journal

摘　　要：非法证据排除规则存在“制裁”与“救济”两种规范原理,这一分歧在我国并未得到认真对待。制裁原理以司法正洁与威慑违法作为证据排除的正当依据,具有国家本位、义务本位、违法者本位的基本特征。目前我国主流观点将证据排除理解为“程序性制裁”,支持制裁原理下的非法证据排除规则,由此导致证据排除的存在意义难题、范围失控难题、裁量模糊难题等理论与实践问题。与之相对,救济原理引入矫正正义作为正当依据,主张证据排除是“程序性救济”,其目的在于恢复原状,具有个人本位、权利本位、受害者本位的基本特征。与制裁原理相比,救济原理可以为我国证据排除的存在意义、范围限制、裁量标准等提供更为妥当的解释。虽然如此,单一救济原理下的证据排除同样存在其缺陷。基于原理协同的立场,以制裁原理补充并修正部分解释结论,对我国非法证据排除规则而言更具积极意义。There are two normative rationales—“sanction”and“remedy”—in the exclusionary rules,the difference of which has not been taken seriously in China.The rationale of sanction is based on judicial integrity and deterrence,featuring as state-oriented,duty-oriented and lawbreaker-oriented.At present,the mainstream opinion in China interprets the exclusion of evidence as a“procedural sanction”and supports the exclusionary rules under the sanction rationale,which leads to some theoretical and practical problems,such as lack of value foundation,uncontrollable scope and vague discretion.In contrast,the remedy rationale introduces corrective justice as the justification of exclusionary rules,claiming that the exclusion of evidence is a“procedural remedy”to restore the original state,thus being individual-oriented,rights-oriented and victim-oriented.Compared with the sanction rationale,the rationale of remedy can provide a more appropriate explanation for the value foundation,scope restriction,and discretionary criteria of exclusionary rules in China.Nevertheless,the exclusion of evidence under single the remedy rationale is also insufficient.It would further improve the exclusionary rules in China if we introduce sanction rationale to supplement and amend some of the interpretation conclusion with a synergic point of view.

关 键 词：排除规则 非法证据 裁量排除 程序性制裁 程序性救济 

分 类 号：D925.2[政治法律—诉讼法学]