论我国诉讼证据审查要素及审查方法的调整改革
龙宗智论我国诉讼证据审查要素及审查方法的调整改革
The Adjustment and Reform of Elements and Methods of Litigation Evidence Examination
期刊名称：《法学研究》
期刊年份：
作者：龙宗智
单位：
中文关键词：证据审查;证据“三性”;证据能力;证明力;定案根据
英文关键词：evidence examination; the three attributes of evidence; evidential competence of evidence; probative force of evidence; the basis for the final decision
中文摘要：
我国诉讼证据审查的基本逻辑是，以“三性”审查为基础，以“定案根据”确认为依归，同时审查判断证明力，进而认定事实。英美法系和大陆法系的证据审查则呈现为证据资格与证据效用两分格局，其证据法着重规制前端证据资格，而证据“三性”以特定方式嵌入证据制度。我国现行证据审查制度具有要素清晰、审查方式较为灵活等特点，但其平面化特征妨碍了证据审查逻辑的清晰展开；“三性”审查缺乏精准界定及必要区分，且与“两力”关系不清晰。改革完善证据审查方式，首先应准确界定“三性”内涵，厘清“三性”与其他证据审查要素的关系，并适当调整其适用方法。其次，应在司法解释规范中使用证据能力概念，强化“可以(不能)作为证据使用”的审查规范，加强证据准入的前端控制。最后，保留部分定案根据规范，维系后端控制要素，形成前后端控制并重的二元审查机制。
英文摘要：
The basic logic of evidence examination in litigation in China is to determine the fact of a case by taking the examination of the authenticity, relevance and legality of evidence as the basis and the confirmation of "the basis for the final decision" as the support and making a judgment of the probative force of the evidence. Evidence examination in the common law system and in the civil law system presents two patterns of evidence qualification and evidence utility. Evidence law focuses on the regulation of "front-end evidence qualification", and the authenticity, relevance and legality of evidence are embedded in the examination system in a specific way. The current evidence review system in China is characterized by clear elements and flexible review methods, but its "flat" characteristic hinders the clear expansion of evidence review logic. The examination of the authenticity, relevance and legality of evidence has the problem of lacking a precise definition and necessary distinction, and its relationship with the competence and probative force of evidence is not clear. To reform and improve the method of evidence examination, firstly, it is necessary to clearly define the connotations of the authenticity, relevance and legality of evidence, clarify their relationships with other elements of evidence examination, and appropriately adjust the method of their use. Secondly, the concept of competence of evidence should be infused into judicial interpretation norms to strengthen norms on the review of "competence (incompetence) of evidence", so as to strengthen the control of the front-end of evidence. Finally, part of the norms on "the basis for the final decision" should be retained to maintain the back-end control elements, thus forming a "binary review mechanism" with the coexistence of the front-end and back-end controls.
全文阅读： 点击下载
