刑事非法证据认定的主观化趋向及其反思  

The Subjectivization Trend in the Determination of Illegal Evidence in Criminal Cases and Its Reflection

作　　者：杨常雨 YANG Changyu(Chongqing People’s Procuratorate,Chongqing 401120,China)

机构地区：[1]重庆市人民检察院,重庆401120

出　　处：《西南政法大学学报》2024年第4期109-124,共16页Journal of Southwest University of Political Science and Law

基　　金：2021年司法部法治建设与法学理论研究部级项目“智慧侦查背景下的大数据证据使用禁止规则研究”(21SFB4042)。

摘　　要：法律适用本身并不反对司法能动性,但主观化趋向下的非法证据认定偏离了司法能动的正当性要求。“主客”二分图式下,法律行为可解构为主体、客体、主观、客观与法律规范等要素。当前非法证据认定出现了认定范围扩大化、“非法”与“瑕疵”认定混同化等主观化趋向。其原因主要在于:司法者对非法证据认定标准不统一,法律规范的文字表述模糊和法律监督制约机制不健全。有效限制非法证据认定主观化趋向应坚持体系性思维,即在适用标准层面准确界定非法证据认定标准,在机制运行层面构建审前非法证据认定的监督机制,在法律制定层面精准设计非法证据认定的法律条文。The application of law does not inherently oppose judicial activism,yet the subjectivization trend in the determination of illegal evidence deviates from the legitimacy requirements of judicial activism.In the“subject-object”dichotomy framework,legal actions can be deconstructed into elements such as subject,object,subjective,objective,and legal norms.After stripping away the influences of elements like subject and object on the determination of illegal evidence,empirical research reveals that current determinations show a trend of subjectivization,including an expansion of the recognition scope and a conflation of“illegality”with“defects.”The reasons for this include inconsistent standards among judicial actors for determining illegal evidence,ambiguous wording of legal norms,and insufficient legal supervision and constraints.To effectively limit the subjectivization trend in the determination of illegal evidence,a systematic approach should be adhered to,which includes clarifying misconceptions about the standards for such determinations at the application standard level,constructing a pre-trial supervision and constraint mechanism at the mechanism operation level,and precisely designing legal provisions for the determination of illegal evidence at the legislation level.

关 键 词：非法证据 证据属性 主观化 体系性反思 

分 类 号：DF73[政治法律—诉讼法学]