【作者】 赵妍；

【导师】 吕凤英；

【作者基本信息】 辽宁师范大学 ， 科学社会主义与国际共产主义运动， 2007， 硕士

【摘要】 非法证据排除规则在刑事诉讼的证据规则中具有很重要的地位,是证据规则之不可采性规则中的重要组成部分,具有很重要的法律价值和社会价值。证据排除规则产生于20世纪初的美国,后来被其他国家不同程度地采纳。在我国逐步完善非法证据排除法则,其目的并不仅仅是排除非法证据本身,而是希望通过非法证据的排除阻却或预防司法人员在刑事诉讼中可能出现的非法行为,以达到保障人权、实现司法公正之诉讼价值目的。非法证据的排除与否是刑事证据制度较为复杂的问题之一,法学界和司法界始终存在着激烈争论。不同国家以及同一国家的不同历史阶段对非法证据的态度不同,体现了刑事诉讼中追求实体真实、惩罚犯罪和维护正当程序、保障人权的权衡比较与取舍。目前,尽管我国立法上对非法取证行为采取否定态度,但对非法证据排除规则却并未作出明确的可操作性的规定。相关刑事立法与司法解释虽然对这一缺陷在一定程度上进行了修补,但由于其规定比较粗糙尚不足以具体地规范司法实践。近年以来,随着佘祥林、杜培武等冤案、错案的频频曝光,司法机关侵犯公民合法权利非法取证的行为已经引起了人民群众的强烈不满、损害了人民司法机关的形象,也损害了司法公正的目标。因此,实务界、立法机关和社会各界对修改刑诉法的呼声日益高涨,建立符合中国实际的非法证据排除规则应予提上议事日程。本文写作中的研究方法采用了纵向历史分析、横向比较、例证和分析等方法,但不论是哪一种方法都是为了对有关概念和制度进行剖析,以印证保障人权、公正司法的诉讼法学原理,使自己的观点具有较强的说服力。本文共分四大部分展开论述。第一部分从研究非法证据排除规则的相关概念辨析、产生的背景及非法证据排除规则的价值平衡入手,认为我国的刑事非法证据排除规则,必须坚持利益权衡原则,使得大于失,既确保社会秩序的稳定,又保障公民的合法权益,从而最大限度的寻求惩罚犯罪与保障人权、实体公正与程序公正、国家权力与个人权利、司法公正与刑事效益等社会价值的平衡,以实现刑事诉讼的真正目的;第二部分客观地总结和分析了包括美国、英国、德国、日本等两大法系国家的有关非法证据排除规则的理论研究与立法之规定,对两大法系国家非法证据排除规则进行了比较并得出对我国的启示。第三部分论述了我国关于非法证据排除规则的理论研究与立法实践,并总结了现有规定的缺陷与不足;第四部分在上文基础上深入探讨了如何完善符合我国现实国情的非法证据排除规则,论述了我国非法证据排除规则的立法总体模式、相关法律制度与配套措施的完善以及非法证据排除规则现实操作性的完善。更多还原

【Abstract】 The exclusion rules of the criminal illegal evidence have a very important position in the evidence rules of the criminal procedure, and are an important portion of the admissible rules of the evidence rules. The exclusion rules are very important to the legal and social values. The exclusion rules dated back from the early 20th century in the United States, then were accepted by other countries in various degrees. China has gradually improved the exclusion rules of illegal evidence, and its purpose is not only to exclude illegal evidence itself, but also through the illegal evidence exclusion to prevent officers from illegal behavior which may be occurred in criminal justice, to achieve protection of human rights and achieve purposes of the justice’s litigation value.Whether to exclude“illegal evidence”or not is one of comparatively complicated problems in criminal evidence system ,all the time there is strong dispute in law circle and judicial circle. Attitudes toward illegal evidence of different historical stages of different countries and the same country are different, reflecting that pursues the entity trully in criminal suit, punishes crimes and maintains the proper procedure , ensures human rights are weighed and chosen. At present,although the negative attitude is taken to the action of illegally collection evidence, but the straightforward and maneuverable regulation to the exclusion rules of the illegal evidence has still not been made out . Although the shortcoming was repaired in some extent by the related criminal legislation and judicial interpretation, however, their regulation is not used to restrict the judicial practice concretely due to the rough of the regulation. In recent years, with the exposure of the injustice and wrong cases, such as She Xianglin and Du Peiwu, the action of the juridical department infringing the legitimate rights of citizens and collecting evidence illegally, has already aroused the people’s strong dissatisfaction, has harmed the image of the judiciary, and has also undermined the goal of justice.The research method in this text writing adopted lengthways history analysis, horizontal comparison, instance and analysis methods, but in spite of which kind of methods all for carrying on an analysis to concerning the concept and system to corroborate guarantee human rights,fair judicatory of the litigation method learn principle, making the own standpoint have stronger conviction.This text is divided into four major parts to launch treatise. The first part discusses the related Concepts, the background and the balance of the value of the exclusion rules of illegal evidence. We believe that the exclusion rules of criminal illegal evidence in our country must adhere to the principle of balancing interests, making greater than the losses, both to ensure social stability, safeguarding the legitimate rights and interests of citizens. thus the maximum punishment for crime and the protection of human rights, justice and entities procedural fairness, the state power and the rights of the individual, Criminal justice and the social value of effective balance to achieve the real purpose of criminal proceedings; The second part of the text objectively review and analyse theoretical research and legislation of exclusion rules of the illegal evidence of the two major typical countries of law system, including the United States, Britain, Germany and Japan. Comparing and analyzing the theoretical research and the legislation of the main countries of two fundamental laws and principles department, we obtain the inspiration for our country. The third part discusses the exclusion rules of illegal evidence of theoretical research and legislative practice, and summarizes the provisions of the existing defects and shortcomings; On foundation of the preceding context, there is the in-depth study of how to improve the real situation of the exclusion rules of illegal evidence in China in the fourth part, we discuss the improvement of legislative overall pattern, the relevant legal system, the matched measures and the realistic operability of exclusion rules of criminal illegal evidence in our country.更多还原