刑事大数据证据的证据化路径研究  

Research on the Evidentiary Path of Criminal Big Data Evidence

作　　者：丰叶 FENG Ye(Law School,Northwest Normal University,Lanzhou 730070,China;Law School,Zhongnan University of Economics and Law,Wuhan 430070,China)

机构地区：[1]西北师范大学法学院,甘肃兰州730070 [2]中南财经政法大学法学院,湖北武汉430070

出　　处：《大连理工大学学报（社会科学版）》2024年第5期93-101,共9页Journal of Dalian University of Technology(Social Sciences)

基　　金：国家社会科学基金重大项目“数字时代总体国家安全观的理论深化与实践逻辑研究”(22ZDA120)。

摘　　要：大数据分析因其准确性、智能性、适配性而被应用于侦查活动中,由此产生的大数据分析结论能否作为认定犯罪事实的依据,不可一概而论,唯有区分广义、中义、狭义的刑事大数据证据,厘准证据属性,并在刑事证据场域中厘定大数据证据在证据体系和证据种类中的定位以及影响大数据证据生成的空间要素和时间要素,厘清电子数据、作为间接证据的大数据证据、作为犯罪线索的大数据证据的区别。在此基础上,通过层次化的立法路径,为总结性的刑事大数据证据和预测性的刑事大数据证据设置不同的审查规则,将刑事大数据证据循序渐进地运用于刑事审判中并作为定案依据。Big data analysis is applied in the investigation activities owing to its accuracy,intelligence,and adaptability.Whether the conclusions drawn from big data analysis can be used as a basis for determining criminal facts cannot be generalized.It is necessary to distinguish between the broad,medium,and narrow definitions of criminal big data evidence,accurately define the evidence attributes,and determine the positioning of big data evidence within the evidence system and evidence categories in the field of criminal evidence,as well as the spatial and temporal elements that affect the generation of big data evidence.It is also crucial to clarify the differences between electronic data,big data evidence as indirect evidence,and big data evidence as criminal clues.On this basis,through a hierarchical legislative path,different review rules should be established for retrospective/summative criminal big data evidence and predictive criminal big data evidence.This approach allows for the gradual application of criminal big data evidence in criminal trials as a basis for judgment.

关 键 词：刑事大数据证据 总结性的刑事大数据证据 预测性的刑事大数据证据 

分 类 号：DF73[政治法律—诉讼法学]