【作者】 李敏；

【导师】 原立荣；

【作者基本信息】 西南政法大学 ， 诉讼法学， 2016， 硕士

【摘要】 刑事诉讼法作为程序法除了担负保障实体法实施的重任以外,还具有自身独特的价值追求,其中之一便是保障人权。与刑事实体法人权保障不同,刑事诉讼法偏重于对犯罪嫌疑人、被告人的保护,非法证据排除规则恰恰体现了这种价值。美国人首先将证据的可采性与被追诉人的人权保障结合起来,后经长达两个多世纪的发展完善,排除规则渐趋成熟。非法证据排除规则功能原理在于通过使侦查机关收集的证据丧失证据能力来消灭侦查机关非法取证行为所获得的利益,从而使无利可图的侦查机关放弃违法取证的企图。我国在1979年刑事诉讼法中就已经对非法取证行为作了否定性的评价,后经两次刑诉法修改,这一立场从未改变。在2012年新刑事诉讼法的修改中,我国系统确立了非法证据排除规则。与早先确立非法证据排除规则的国家相比,我国除了在审判阶段赋予法官排除非法证据的权力外,检察机关和侦查机关也成为排除非法证据的主体。侦查机关作为收集非法证据的“嫌疑人”,其主动排除非法证据的可能性有待考察,作为法律监督机关的检察机关在侦查阶段主要负责审查批准逮捕工作,对于非法证据排除规则在这一阶段的适用状况,确有研究的必要。逮捕是最为严厉的强制措施,为了保障逮捕的准确适用,检察机关应当对逮捕的条件进行慎重的判断。在逮捕的诸多条件中,证据条件居于基础地位,故非法证据排除规则在审查逮捕阶段的准确应用成为检察机关正确适用逮捕的关键。同时,借助排除规则,审查逮捕程序可以作为庭审的前置程序,对证据预先加以判断,从而间接保证庭审的公正性,而所有的一切都将会为保护被追诉者的人权服务。除此之外,审查逮捕阶段的非法证据排除工作也会在一定程度上防止冤案的发生,保证案件事实的及早发现。为了探究非法证据排除规则在审查逮捕中的运行状况,笔者对其进行了实证研究。在我国,重罪案件犯罪嫌疑人在所有的被追诉者所占的比例较低,所以客观上决定了侦查机关迫于办案压力而违法取证的情形不会很多,相应地,非法证据排除规则适用的案例也不会在多数。虽然如此,瑕疵证据与非法证据的混同还是影响了非法证据排除规则的运用。同时,重复供述和派生证据的存在削弱了排除规则对侦查机关可能起到的震慑效果。在审查逮捕阶段,以侦查机关为主导的带有明显追诉倾向的检警关系使检察机关缺乏主动排除非法证据的动力,而获知非法证据渠道的有限性更加不利于犯罪嫌疑人借助排除规则为自由而抗争。为了保证非法证据排除规则在审查逮捕阶段顺利适用,笔者建议应从厘清非法证据的界限入手,合理界定非法证据与相关概念,防止法律文本的粗疏造成实务部门向周边概念“逃逸”。其次,消除检察机关的角色冲突,使之对逮捕活动中的证据问题进行独立的判断。最后,应加强配套制度建设,强化犯罪嫌疑人的辩护权,从而保证辩方在审查逮捕工作中发挥应有的作用。更多还原

【Abstract】 As a procedure law, in addition to take the responsibility to guarantee the implementation of substantive law, Criminal Procedure Law also has its own unique value of the pursuit, one of which is to protect human rights. In differing from what Substantive criminal law does to the protection of human rights,the Criminal Procedure Law focus on the protection of the suspects and defendants,and the exclusionary rule precisely reflects this tendency. American people firstly combine the admissibility of evidence with the protection of human rights,and after more than two centuries of development, the exclusionary rule matures. Functional principle of the exclusionary rule is that evidence collected by the investigating authorities will lose the ability,in that case,the interests of illegal acts will be destroyed,the investigating authorities will finally abandon the illegal intent. The Criminal Procedure Law in 1979 had already showed a negative assessment of the evidence of illegal behavior, after two criminal procedure law, this position has never been changed. After the modification of the new Criminal Procedure Law in 2012, the exclusionary rule was established. Compared with the countries establishing exclusionary rule previously, besides the judges at the trial stage, prosecutors and investigative agencies also have the power to exclude the illegal evidence. As the "suspects" of collecting illegally obtained evidence, whether the investigating authorities are willing to cancel the illegal evidence is still a question.As the Procuratorial organs,prosecutors in the investigation stage are mainly responsible for the examination and approval arrests,so it is really necessary to study applicable conditions of the exclusionary rule at this stage. Arrest is the most severe coercive measures, all meet the conditions of arrest would be deprived of their liberty in the short term, in order to apply the arrest accurately, the prosecutors should weigh every condition of arrest cautiously. Considering every condition of the arrest, the evidence is no doubt the basic one,so applying the exclusionary rule accurately should be in a key stage of the review of the arrest.At the same time, with the exclusion rules, the procedures of review of arrest can be used as pre-trial procedures for judging evidence in advance, so that indirectly ensure a fair trial.All in all, everything we mentioned beyond will be good for the protection of human rights by the prosecution service. In addition, the exclusion of illegal evidence during the stage of review of the arrest will work to some extent,prevent the occurrence of injustice, and ensure an early detection of the facts of the case.To explore the situation of excluding illegally obtained evidence in the review of arrest, the author makes an empirical study. In our country, the number of serious crimes suspects is quite small, that means objectively the authorities will not be forced to handle the illegal investigation in most cases, and accordingly, the exclusionary rule will not be applied in most cases. Nevertheless, the garble between defective evidence and illegal obtained evidence affect the application of illegal evidence exclusion rules. At the same time, repeated confessions and evidence derived existence weakens the exclusionary rule’s deterrent effect on the investigating authorities. The relationship between police and prosecutors which shows a clear tendency of prosecution makes the prosecutors lack of initiative power to exclude illegal evidence in the stage of arrest, and the limited channels of informing the existence of illegal obtained evidence are also lower the possibilities which the suspects fighting for their freedom with the help of exclusion rules. In order to ensure the application of the exclusionary rule in the Examination of Arrest smoothly, firstly the writer suggests that the definition of illegal evidence and related concepts should be clarified to prevent the substantive departments fleeing to the related conceptions because of the careless legal texts. Secondly, we should eliminate the contradictory role of prosecution to make the prosecutors make the independent decision when judging evidence in the stage of review of arrest. Finally, we should strengthen the supporting system and the right to defense of the suspect, in order to ensure the defense to play its due role in the review of the arrest work.更多还原