证据确实充分等于排除合理怀疑吗?

Is Authenticity and Sufficiency of Evidence Identical to Beyond a Reasonable Doubt?

传播影响力
本库下载频次:
本库浏览频次:
CNKI下载频次:0

归属学者:

李昌盛

归属院系:

法学院

作者:

李昌盛1

摘要:

证据确实充分标准与排除合理怀疑标准的主要差异体现在面对证据短缺问题时如何认定事实的路径差异。司法认识论哲学、事实认定结论权威性的来源与保障、事实认定权力的分配模式以及有罪证据的制度性供给能力等差异是导致二者采取不同路径的主要因素。在证据短缺的时候,优先选择增加证据份量更加符合诉讼制度的求真目标,但只能要求达到一种相对合理的程度。否则,此路径不仅可能提高违法取证风险和误判风险,而且可能诱发不负责任的判决。学界关于两种标准具有同一性或高低性的观点混淆了证据充分与排除合理怀疑的性质、功能和规范路径。需要重新理解证据充分和排除合理怀疑的意义,以使它们前后相继地完成降低错案风险和合理分配剩余风险的任务。

出版日期:

2020-03-26

学科:

诉讼法学

收录:

CSSCI; 中国科技核心期刊

提交日期

2020-06-28

引用参考

李昌盛. 证据确实充分等于排除合理怀疑吗?[J]. 国家检察官学院学报,2020(02):101-117.

全文附件授权许可

知识共享许可协议-署名

  • dc.title
  • 证据确实充分等于排除合理怀疑吗?
  • dc.contributor.author
  • 李昌盛
  • dc.contributor.author
  • Li Changsheng;Research Center for Procedural Law and Judicial Reform of Southwest University of Political Science and Law
  • dc.contributor.affiliation
  • 西南政法大学诉讼法与司法改革研究中心
  • dc.publisher
  • 国家检察官学院学报
  • dc.publisher
  • Journal of National Prosecutors College
  • dc.identifier.year
  • 2020
  • dc.identifier.issue
  • 02
  • dc.identifier.volume
  • v.28;No.146
  • dc.identifier.page
  • 101-117
  • dc.date.issued
  • 2020-03-26
  • dc.subject
  • 证据确实充分;排除合理怀疑;证明标准;错案风险;剩余风险
  • dc.subject
  • Authenticity and Sufficiency of Evidence;Beyond Reasonable Doubt;Standard of Proof;Risks of Erroneous Judgment;Residual Risks
  • dc.description.abstract
  • 证据确实充分标准与排除合理怀疑标准的主要差异体现在面对证据短缺问题时如何认定事实的路径差异。司法认识论哲学、事实认定结论权威性的来源与保障、事实认定权力的分配模式以及有罪证据的制度性供给能力等差异是导致二者采取不同路径的主要因素。在证据短缺的时候,优先选择增加证据份量更加符合诉讼制度的求真目标,但只能要求达到一种相对合理的程度。否则,此路径不仅可能提高违法取证风险和误判风险,而且可能诱发不负责任的判决。学界关于两种标准具有同一性或高低性的观点混淆了证据充分与排除合理怀疑的性质、功能和规范路径。需要重新理解证据充分和排除合理怀疑的意义,以使它们前后相继地完成降低错案风险和合理分配剩余风险的任务。
  • dc.description.abstract
  • The main difference between standard of authenticity and sufficiency of evidence and standard of beyond a reasonable doubt is the distinct path on how to find fact when facing insufficient evidence. The chief factors influencing the choice of the two paths are the philosophies of epistemology,the sources of authority of fact-finding conclusion,the models of allocation of fact-finding power,and the capacities of the systematic provision of inculpatory evidence. When the problem of insufficient evidence arises,it is more in line with the goal of pursuing accuracy to choose the way of improving the weights of evidence as a preference,but the weights requirement can only be achieved to a relatively rational degree. Otherwise,it may not only increase the risks of unlawful acts of acquiring evidence and misjudgment of facts,but also induce noncommittal judgments. The viewpoints on the equation or superiority difference of the two standards among scholars confuse the requirements of sufficiency and beyond reasonable doubt. The two requirements have their own nature,function and regulating path. We need to reinterpret the different meanings of the two requirements,which may let them successively accomplish the tasks of decreasing the risks of erroneous judgment and legitimately allocating the residual risks of erroneous judgment.
  • dc.description.sponsorshipPCode
  • 19XFX006
  • dc.description.sponsorship
  • 2019年度国家社科基金项目“证据的支撑力和区分力问题研究”(19XFX006)的阶段性成果
  • dc.description.sponsorshipsource
  • 国家社会科学基金
  • dc.identifier.CN
  • 11-3194/D
  • dc.identifier.issn
  • 1004-9428
  • dc.identifier.if
  • 2.220
  • dc.subject.discipline
  • D925.2
回到顶部