【作者】 王鑫；

【导师】 侯德福；

【作者基本信息】 辽宁大学 ， 法律（法学）（专业学位）， 2019， 硕士

【摘要】 1979年我国《刑事诉讼法》将被害人陈述列为法律规定证据之一,直到1996年,刑诉法进行修改,被害人被划归到当事人的范畴中,使得这一证据种类的独立性更为稳定。经这两次规定后,被害人陈述基于其独立证据的法定地位在国内立法和司法实践中被广泛使用。从1979年到现在,被害人陈述拥有独立证据的法定地位已有四十年的时间,但是相关理论仍然停留在证人证言范畴内,至于它之所以能够成为法定独立的证据种类及其合理性,一直很少被论证。在我国,判断被害人的陈述和证人证言两种法定证据的资格和证明力所依据之规则大同小异。被害人的陈述和证人的证词这两者虽然互不影响,但是二者适用的证据规则别无二致。被害人和证人这两个主体都根据其自身感知对整个事实做出陈述,但前者很显然对最终的判决拥有更大的利害关系,后者通常和案件无利害关系,是中立的第三人。与英美法系国家不同,我国并不直接视被害人陈述为证人证词,而是一种独立证据种类,具有其科学合理性。由于被害人陈述有独立性和特殊性,加上我国司法实践的需求,我国有必要进一步对其证据能力和证明力做更深入的研究,探索确立起与二者特点相适应的规则。本文第一部分主要论述的是被害人陈述证据能力与证明力规则确实有存在的必要性,被害人陈述证据能力规则的存在有几方面的意义,它能够规范被害人陈述,同时也有利办案人员和法官的行为的规范,保护被害人的诉讼权利,这也符合诉讼的经济合理性、合目的性的要求,有促进庭审的公正与实质化的作用。被害人陈述证明力规则的存在也是必要的,有助于准确认定案件事实,规范被害人陈述的行为,规范法官自由评价证据,提高司法效率,降低司法成本。第二部分分别介绍了在英美法系和大陆法系中证据能力与证明力规则相关规定,可以为我国被害人陈述证据能力和证明力规则构建提供借鉴。第三部分论述的是被害人陈述证据能力与证明力规则在适用中的存在的问题,存在着非法言词排除规则规定不够完善,传闻证据的认定缺乏立法规定,被害人陈述中品格证据判断也很难,被害人意见证据的证据能力判断规定的不够具体,证明力补强规则规定也有不合理之处等。第四部分提出完善被害人陈述证据能力规则、证明力规则的建议,被害人陈述的证据能力应受到传闻规则、意见规则、品格证据规则的限制,其证明力也需从立法、完善补强规则、限定自由裁量权等方面予以完善。更多还原

【Abstract】 1979 China’s Criminal Procedure law listed the victim statement as one of the legal provisions of the evidence,until 1996,the criminal Prosecution Law was amended,the victim was classified into the scope of the parties,so that the independence of this type of evidence more stable.After these two provisions,the legal status of the victim’s statement based on its independent evidence is widely used in domestic legislation and judicial practice.From 1979 to the present,it has been 40 years since the victim’s statement had the legal status of independent evidence,but the relevant theory is still in the category of witness testimony,and the reason why it can become a legal independent type of evidence and its rationality has been rarely demonstrated.In our country,judging the victim’s statement and the witness’ s testimony,the evidence ability and the proof power of the two kinds of legal evidence are much the same.The statements of the victims and the testimony of witnesses,although they do not affect each other,but the rules of evidence applicable to the two same as.Victims and witnesses both subjects made statements about the whole fact on the basis of their own perception,but the former clearly had a greater stake in the final verdict,which usually had no interest in the case and was a neutral third party.Unlike common law countries,China does not directly regard victims as witness statements,but a kind of independent evidence,which has its scientific rationality.Because of the independence and particularity of the victim’s statement,coupled with the need of judicial practice in our country,it is necessary for our country to further study its evidence ability and proof power in depth,and to explore and establish the rules that are suitable for the characteristics of the two.The first part of this paper mainly discusses that there is a real need for the victim to state the evidence ability and the rule of proof force,the existence of the victim’s evidence ability rule has several meanings,it can standardize the victim’s statement,but also conducive to the behavior of the case handlers and judges,protect the victim’s litigation rights,This is also in line with the economic rationality of litigation,the requirements of the purpose,there is to promote the justice and substantive role of the trial.The existence of the rule of proof of victim’s statement is also necessary,which is helpful to accurately identify the facts of the case,standardize the behavior of the victim’s statement,standardize the judge’s free evaluation of the evidence,improve the judicial efficiency and reduce the judicial cost.The second part introduces the relevant provisions of the rules of evidence ability and proof force in the common law system and the Civil law system respectively,which can provide reference for the construction of the evidence ability and the rule of proof force of the victims in our country.The third part discusses the problem that the victim’s ability to state evidence and the rule of proof force exist in the application,the existence of illegal speech exclusion rules is not perfect,the lack of legislative provisions for the identification of hearsay evidence,the victim’s character evidence judgment is also difficult,the victim’s opinion evidence of the evidence ability judgment provisions are not specific enough,There are also unreasonable provisions in the rules of proof of strength and reinforcement.The four part puts forward the suggestion of perfecting the rule of victim’s statement of evidence ability and the rule of proof power,and the evidence ability of victim’s statement should be limited by hearsay rule,opinion rule and character evidence rule,and its proof power should be perfected from the aspects of legislation,perfecting the rule of reinforcement,limiting discretion and so on.更多还原