刑事证明标准的规范偏移与校正——从“刑事诉讼法解释”第140条切入
王星译刑事证明标准的规范偏移与校正——从“刑事诉讼法解释”第140条切入
Deviations from Criminal Standards of Proof and Approaches to Their Rectification
期刊名称：《法学研究》
期刊年份：
作者：王星译
单位：华中科技大学法学院
中文关键词：证明标准;事实认定;间接证据;证据印证;自由心证
英文关键词：standard of proof; fact-finding; indirect evidence; corroboration of evidence; discretional evaluation of evidence
中文摘要：
受制于客观真实发现的诉讼认识论，我国刑事证明标准尚未摆脱“客观化”标签。如何规限法官对事实的内心确信，一直是刑事司法实践与理论的难题。2021年“刑事诉讼法解释”第140条的司法实践表明，证据裁判活动与法官事实心证出现功能性混同，证明标准条款出现某种“规范偏移”。由于事实心证的“高标准”不当限制了证据裁判活动，降格适用证据要求与程序要求、以形式叙事为主线建构“证据链”便成为实务部门的应对之策。为规避主观风险与体制责任，法院用客观证明充足事实心证的主观判断，却又因为缺乏心证约束机制而陷入误用经验推定的危险。为校正实务对规范的偏移，解决证明标准的主观性难题，有必要树立“先证据裁判，后内心确信”的递进式裁判思维，把排除合理怀疑的心证自由置于事实证成这一裁判说理义务的约束之中。
英文摘要：
Subject to the procedural epistemology of pursuing the objective truth, China’s criminal standard of proof has not gotten rid of the label of objectivization. How to govern judges’ judicial belief of facts has been a difficult issue in the criminal judicature on both practical and theoretical levels. When the Article 140 in China’s Judicial Interpretations on China’s Criminal Procedure Law issued by the People’s Supreme Court amended in 2021 is applied practically, evidentiary requirements are confounded with judicial belief in fact-findings, showing that it has been drifting away from the statutes regulating the standard of proof. In the circumstance that evidentiary requirements are improperly restrained by the high standard of convictions, courts are more inclined to lower the evidentiary requirements and to construct the chain of evidence surrounding the mainline of formal narratives. However, to avoid the risk brought with subjective judgments and also the systemic responsibilities, courts tend to convict with factual belief on the objective proof, and yet without proper restrictions, the so-called factual presumptions might be abused. To adjust the deviations and to tackle with the subjectivity issue, this paper promotes a two-step approach, that is, evidentiary factors’ review comes first and convictions with judicial belief come forward. In addition, to govern the free belief when evaluating the standard of beyond all reasonable doubts, the fact-finder is legally obliged to justify the facts that he/she is convinced.
全文阅读： 点击下载
