积极抗辩事由的证明责任:误解与澄清
李昌盛积极抗辩事由的证明责任:误解与澄清
Burden of Proof for “Affirmative Defenses”: Misunderstanding and Clarification
期刊名称：《法学研究》
期刊年份：
作者：李昌盛
单位：西南政法大学诉讼法与司法改革研究中心
中文关键词：积极抗辩事由;证明责任;说服责任;提供证据责任;证明必要
英文关键词：affirmative defenses;burden of proof;burden of persuasion;burden of adducing evidence;proof necessity
中文摘要：
近年来,国内有学者主张应当将所谓“积极抗辩事由”的证明责任分配给被告人,认为这种分配机制不仅契合“谁主张,谁举证”的证明责任分配原理和“由容易举证者举证”的证明政策,而且符合当前法治成熟国家的普遍做法。但是,这些观点不仅在比较法上存在严重误解,而且没有认识到刑事证明责任的特殊性,更缺乏对我国法律和实践的充分关照,因此,这些观点不足以成为要求我国刑事诉讼中的被告人承担积极抗辩事由证明责任的依据。相反,由于存在因客观败诉风险而导致的证明必要,当下亟需强化对被告人辩护权的保障以及司法机关的“照顾义务”,而不是要求被告人承担积极抗辩事由的证明责任。
英文摘要：
In recent years, many scholars in China believe that the burden of proof of the so-called “affirmative defenses” should be allocated to the defendant because such allocation mechanism conforms not only to the principle of distribution of burden of proof that “he who affirms must prove” and the proof policy according to which the burden of producing evidence shall be borne by the party who could easily adduce evidence, but also to the common practice of western law-based countries. However, their arguments are based on some serious misunderstandings in comparative law and on their failure to recognize the particularity of the burden of proof in criminal cases. Because of the tradition of inquisitorial procedure, the defendant in Continental Law countries does not carry the burden of adducing evidence for “affirmative defenses”. In Common Law countries, the defendant is generally required to bear the burden of adducing evidence for “affirmative defenses” mainly because of the structure of the adversarial jury procedure. The Chinese criminal law differs from the criminal law of Common Law countries both in crime constitution and in procedural mode and, in practice, the right of defense is not sufficiently safeguarded in China. Therefore, there exist no sufficient grounds to require the defendant in China to bear the burden of persuasion or to produce evidence for “affirmative defenses”. On the contrary, because of the “proof necessity” resulting from the “objective risk of losing a case”, currently China urgently needs to strengthen the defense right and the “duty of care” of judicial organs, rather than to demand the defendant to bear the burden of proving the so-called “affirmative defenses”.
全文阅读： 点击下载
