构建我国自由心证制度之研究

【作者】 陈莉；

【导师】 汪金兰；

【作者基本信息】 安徽大学 ， 法律， 2007， 硕士

【摘要】 自由心证制度是近现代各国事实认定的原则性制度。为了保证事实认定尽可能客观合理，必须赋予裁判者自由判断证据证明价值的权力，同时对这种权力进行全面地引导和制约。自由心证制度在我国遭受了严重的历史性误读，在现实中人们对它充满了疑虑，理论上更缺乏系统全面地研究。本文以自由心证制度为研究对象，以民事诉讼为中心，对我国自由心证制度的建立以及自由心证制度合理性之保障进行了全面系统地理论分析与论证，以期丰富我国证据制度理论研究成果，为我国民事诉讼证据制度立法提供理论支持，并对司法实践提供理论指导。文章除引言和结语外，共分为五个部分。第一部分是对自由心证制度的历史考察，旨在为我国现代自由心证制度的构建提供现实的参照和理论的支撑。首先，揭示了自由心证制度的内涵，即：原则上不限制证据方法、法官依据经验法则和逻辑法则自由判断证据的证明力、法官斟酌辩论情况及调查证据结果以形成心证、心证的形成以达到法定证明标准为前提、自由心证制度中的“自由”是一种相对的有限的自由。其次，考察了自由心证制度的历史演变，认为，随着西方国家科学技术的飞速发展，大陆法系的自由心证制度越来越强调经验法则和逻辑法则在心证形成中的作用，强调证明标准对心证的制约，强调对法官“心证开示”和“法律观点指明义务”的要求，指出自由心证制度已由传统自由心证发展为现代自由心证。第二部分是对自由心证制度的法理进行分析。首先，从三个方面挖掘了自由心证制度的法理基础，即自由意志、经验法则和高度盖然性。其次，指出自由心证制度在当今社会存在的合理性，即是对法定证据制度的“扬弃”、与发达商品经济社会相适应、与对法官的素质和资格的信赖度紧密相连、以科学技术的发展为支撑。第三部分围绕建立我国自由心证制度的必要性展开论述。首先，对我国实事求是证据制度进行了反思，认为实事求是证据制度的突出特点是追求绝对化的客观真实，随着我国社会快速发展，实事求是证据制度日益不能适应形式发展的需要，因此受到学界广泛质疑；并进一步分析指出传统证据法学的实质是旧唯物主义认识论，应当坚持马克思主义哲学对诉讼活动的指导，不应当将我国证据制度命名为实事求是证据制度，应当正确对待实事求是原则对诉讼证据的指导作用和意义。其次，论证了建立我国民事诉讼自由心证制度之必要性，认为确立自由心证制度是诉讼活动认识规律的必然要求，是改善我国司法实践现状的客观要求。指出，建立我国自由心证制度有利于提升裁判的品质，有利于促进法官独立，有利于提高法官素质，有利于树立司法权威。第四部分围绕建立我国自由心证制度的可行性展开论述。指出审判独立的规定为我国自由心证制度的确立提供了法律基础，自由证明的司法实践为自由心证制度的确立提供了现实基础，法官素质不能成为否定实行自由心证制度的理由，审判方式改革在客观上对自由心证原则提出了要求。第五部分围绕如何构建我国民事诉讼自由心证制度展开论述。该部分也是本文重点。指出，我国自由心证制度之构建，不应是对实事求是证据制度的彻底抛弃，而是要在充分利用我国现有法律制度资源的基础上，借鉴吸收西方自由心证制度的合理因素，还我国实事求是证据制度下自由裁量权以本来面目。首先，论述了构建我国民事诉讼自由心证制度的内在要求，认为法官的良知，即法官的职业道德，是保证司法公正所必须具备的条件之一：遵循经验法则和逻辑法则是在自由心证制度下，对法官证据证明力判断的最基本要求；高度盖然性的证明标准是制约法官自由心证的手段，法官自由心证的结论是适用证明标准进行衡量的结果；法官的心证公开，即对形成确信的事实依据以及证明过程和结果公开，阐明对证据采信或不采信的理由，有利于判决质量的提高和法官业务素质的提高。其次，论述了构建我国民事诉讼自由心证制度的外在制度保障，认为我国自由心证制度的确立以及贯彻实施，需要从制度上真正保障司法独立，保障法官在诉讼中的独立地位；实行合议制，改变我国目前合议庭虚置的现状，真正发挥合议制在防止法官错误评判证据方面的功能，是保障法官心证合理性的重要举措之一；充分发挥上诉、再审制度对自由心证的制约，保障新闻媒体对法官心证过程和结果进行监督的自由，实行完全的自由旁听制度，有利于促进法官心证结果的客观性。更多还原

【Abstract】 Discretional evaluation of evidence system is regarded as a principle system of facts clarification in most modern countries. To ensure and maximize the objectivity of facts clarification, judgment makers should be given the right of discretional evaluation of evidence, and at the same time over-all guidance and restrictions to the fulfillment of the right are quiet necessary. In retrospect, discretional evaluation of evidence system has been suffering serious historical misunderstandings in China. In reality, it confuses many people and in theory it lacks systematical research. This paper, focusing on discretional evaluation of evidence system and based on civil action, is designed for a systematically comprehensive illustration and analysis on the establishment and rational ensurence of discretional evaluation of evidence system. The purpose is to enrich the achievements on evidence system, to provide theoretical support for the legislation of evidence system and theoretical instruction for judicial practice. Besides an introduction and a tag, the paper can be divided into the following five parts.Part one mainly traces the history of discretional evaluation of evidence in order to provide practical reference and theoretical support for the system. Firstly, it discusses the implication of discretional evaluation of evidence which means in principle it breaks the restrictions of evidence-offering methods, with discretional judgment on the effectiveness of evidence, judges conclude discretional evidence through inner conviction based on elaboration on the debate and investigated evidence, with the precondition that the form of discretional evidence through inner conviction meets the standards of legal evidence, the so-called "discretional" refers to a kind of relatively restricted freedom. Secondly, it focuses on the historical evolution of discretional evaluation of evidence. With the development of scientific technology of the western countries, discretional evaluation of evidence in Continental Law System puts more emphasis on the roles that law of experience and law of logic play on discretional evidence through inner conviction and emphasizes the restrictions that standards create on discretional evidence and the requirement of two principles, namely, "enlightening by discretional evaluation evidence through inner conviction" and "the duty of the demonstrations of legal standpoints". It points out that discretional evaluation of evidence system has experienced a change from a traditional one to a modern system.Part two analyzes the legal foundation of discretional evaluation of evidence system. Firstly, it explores from three perspectives the legal foundation of discretional evaluation of evidence system, namely, discretional will, law of experience and high probabilism. Secondly, it points out the rationality of the existence of discretional evaluation of evidence system in modern society. That is to develop the useful and discard the useless of the system of the legal evidence. It suits the commodity economic society and tightly links with the reliability of the quality and qualification of judges. It is based on the development of science and technology.Part three illustrates from the necessity of establishing discretional evaluation of evidence system. Firstly, it reflects on the practical and realistic system of the legal evidence and concludes that the typical feature of the evidence system is to achieve absolute objectivity. With the rapid development of China, the above system has gradually failed to adapt to the development and suffered criticism from the academia. It further points out that traditional evidence system is based on the old materialistic epistemology and we should adhere to the instruction of Marxism philosophy to lawsuit. The name of "practical and realistic evidence system" is not advisable and we should seriously evaluate the instructive role and significance that ’practical and realistic evidence system" has worked on lawsuit evidence. Secondly, it explores the necessity of discretional evaluation of evidence in civil action and concludes that the establishment of discretional evaluation of evidence system is the inevitable factor of lawsuit cognition rules and is the objective necessity of the improvement of China’s present judicial practice. The establishment of discretional evaluation of evidence system can improve the quality of judicial judgment, promote the independence of judges, advance the improvement of judge’s quality and build up judicial authority.Part four explores the feasibility of establishing discretional evaluation of evidence system. Independent judgment lays legal foundation and free certificate provides realistic foundation of establishing discretional evaluation of evidence system. The quality of judges cannot justify the denial of the system and the reform on judgment procedures lodges demands of the system from an objective perspective.Part five is the key part of the paper and expounds on the construction of discretional evaluation of evidence system. It points out that the construction of this system is not a total discard to the traditional "practical and realistic evidence system", but a full use of China’s present legal resources and absorbing the rational factors of western discretional evaluation of evidence system in order to reconstruct the original feature of China’s free judgment right of practical and realistic evidence system. Firstly, it elaborates the interior necessity of establishing discretional evaluation of evidence system in China. Judge’s conscience or judge’s occupational morality is one of the necessities to ensure judicial justice; following the law of experience and law of logic is the most essential requirement of the efficiency of judge’s evidence judgment; high probabilism functions as a measure to restrict judge’s discretional evaluation of evidence. The publicity of judge’s discretional evidence that facts, procedures and conclusions are subjected to be testified will bring improvement of both the quality of judgment and judges. Secondly, it illustrates the exterior ensurence of establishing discretional evaluation of evidence in China. The establishment and fulfillment of the system demands genuine independent judicial ensurence to ensure the independent position of judges involved in lawsuits and the effective implement of the panel discussion system to transform the nominal status quo of the panel and bring into play the role that the panel play in preventing wrong evaluation evidence. It is an important measure to ensure the rationality of discretional evaluation of evidence system. Exerting the role of restrictions of appeal and re-trial, ensuring the media’s free supervision over the process and conclusion of discretional evaluation of evidence, and audition will improve the objective of the conclusion of discretional evaluation of evidence made by judges.更多还原