刑事诉讼中电子数据“书证化”问题研究

Analysis of electronic data documentary evidence in criminal procedure

成果信息
DC信息
传播影响力
本库下载频次:
本库浏览频次:
CNKI下载频次:0

归属院系：

刑事侦查学院

作者：

欧阳佩佩

摘要：

电子数据转化使用现象是指将电子数据作为传统证据进行取证、举证、质证及认证的现象，如将电子数据转化为书证、鉴定意见等，其本质特征为适用转化后的传统证据规则对电子数据进行审查，而非仅指电子数据表现形式的变化。该现象在实践中广泛存在，典型表现为电子数据的书证化，如法庭将举证方提供的微信聊天截图作为书证进行审查，不适用电子数据的证据规则。实证考察证明，刑事诉讼中电子数据书证化现象广泛存在，经统计部分证据材料的书证化率甚至接近40%。同时电子数据转化为书证后存在迥异的证据认定后果，部分因无法与原始电子数据进行校验而被排除，部分则以证据系依法取得、被告人已确认、可与其他证据相互印证等理由被采用。刑事诉讼中电子数据书证化的成因如下：证据种类法定化制度下证据分类的交叉关系是电子数据转化使用现象产生的根源，该现象的普遍性是电子数据证据规则一刀切立法背景下的必然结果，司法实践中对证据表达方式与证据种类的混淆及长久形成的办案习惯进一步加深了该现象。诚然，电子数据书证化截至目前并未导致重大的负面社会影响，如引发冤假错案，但是存在并不意味着合理，电子数据书证化作为中国制度背景下的特有问题应当引起重视。除不利于统一裁判外，电子数据书证化造成的直接问题是电子数据信息完整性的缺失，以及由此带来的电子数据三性受质疑的风险，具体表现为电子数据真实性面临校验难题、电子数据载体关联性存在被否认风险以及电子数据合法性审查陷入形式化困境。除内容信息外电子数据还包含着丰富的附属信息和关联痕迹信息，这些信息的存在是构建及适用电子数据证据规则的基础，而书证化后的转化型电子数据往往仅保留了内容信息，质证方往往无法对转化型电子数据进行有效质证，庭审的价值也无法得到充分发挥。对此，文章从减少电子数据书证化的发生率以及降低其不利影响的目的出发提出：首先，在现有技术条件及规则背景下，将电子数据转化过程是否可追溯作为转化型电子数据审查的关键标准。其次，在取证环节，一方面要依靠技术进步实现对电子数据信息完整性的保护，另一方面则应探索电子数据全面出示方式。研发高速化、自动化、专业化、智能化及综合化电子数据取证设备，搭建官方取证系统，将所获取的电子数据信息以云存储的方式固定，并设置一定的存储时间，在确保电子数据可验证的情况下兼顾可行性。同时，建立以保证质证方对电子数据完整信息可获取性为内容的电子数据全面出示制度，探索高效、通俗的电子数据表达方式。 再次，借鉴级别管辖制度以及直接证据概念，以电子数据所属的案件类型及其证据地位为标准，将电子数据分为四种类型，即重大案件的关键电子数据、重大案件的一般电子数据、普通案件的关键电子数据和普通案件的一般电子数据。并在此基础上借鉴两大诉讼法中已有的电子数据规则，将当前的民事电子证据规则作为第一层较为宽松的电子数据证据规则，将当前的刑事电子数据证据规则作为第二层较为严格的电子数据证据规则。仅对重大案件中的关键电子数据强制适用较为严格电子数据证据规则，而对其他的电子数据适用较宽松的规则，同时通过完善救济来对可能带来的风险进行管控。最后，为从根源上避免电子数据转化使用现象，应当逐渐取消证据种类法定化制度。

语种：

中文

提交日期：

2024-06-14

引用参考：

欧阳佩佩. 刑事诉讼中电子数据“书证化”问题研究[D]. 西南政法大学,2024.

全文附件授权许可：

知识共享许可协议-署名

  • dc.title
  • 刑事诉讼中电子数据“书证化”问题研究
  • dc.title
  • Analysis of electronic data documentary evidence in criminal procedure
  • dc.contributor.schoolno
  • 20220351021935
  • dc.contributor.author
  • 欧阳佩佩
  • dc.contributor.affiliation
  • 刑事侦查学院
  • dc.contributor.degree
  • 硕士
  • dc.contributor.childdegree
  • 法律硕士专业学位
  • dc.contributor.degreeConferringInstitution
  • 西南政法大学
  • dc.identifier.year
  • 2024
  • dc.contributor.direction
  • 证据调查
  • dc.contributor.advisor
  • 颜磊
  • dc.contributor.advisorAffiliation
  • 刑事侦查学院
  • dc.language.iso
  • 中文
  • dc.subject
  • 电子数据,书证化,电子数据类型化
  • dc.subject
  • electronic evidence; Documentary evidence; Electronic data typing
  • dc.description.abstract
  • 电子数据转化使用现象是指将电子数据作为传统证据进行取证、举证、质证及认证的现象，如将电子数据转化为书证、鉴定意见等，其本质特征为适用转化后的传统证据规则对电子数据进行审查，而非仅指电子数据表现形式的变化。该现象在实践中广泛存在，典型表现为电子数据的书证化，如法庭将举证方提供的微信聊天截图作为书证进行审查，不适用电子数据的证据规则。实证考察证明，刑事诉讼中电子数据书证化现象广泛存在，经统计部分证据材料的书证化率甚至接近40%。同时电子数据转化为书证后存在迥异的证据认定后果，部分因无法与原始电子数据进行校验而被排除，部分则以证据系依法取得、被告人已确认、可与其他证据相互印证等理由被采用。刑事诉讼中电子数据书证化的成因如下：证据种类法定化制度下证据分类的交叉关系是电子数据转化使用现象产生的根源，该现象的普遍性是电子数据证据规则一刀切立法背景下的必然结果，司法实践中对证据表达方式与证据种类的混淆及长久形成的办案习惯进一步加深了该现象。诚然，电子数据书证化截至目前并未导致重大的负面社会影响，如引发冤假错案，但是存在并不意味着合理，电子数据书证化作为中国制度背景下的特有问题应当引起重视。除不利于统一裁判外，电子数据书证化造成的直接问题是电子数据信息完整性的缺失，以及由此带来的电子数据三性受质疑的风险，具体表现为电子数据真实性面临校验难题、电子数据载体关联性存在被否认风险以及电子数据合法性审查陷入形式化困境。除内容信息外电子数据还包含着丰富的附属信息和关联痕迹信息，这些信息的存在是构建及适用电子数据证据规则的基础，而书证化后的转化型电子数据往往仅保留了内容信息，质证方往往无法对转化型电子数据进行有效质证，庭审的价值也无法得到充分发挥。对此，文章从减少电子数据书证化的发生率以及降低其不利影响的目的出发提出：首先，在现有技术条件及规则背景下，将电子数据转化过程是否可追溯作为转化型电子数据审查的关键标准。其次，在取证环节，一方面要依靠技术进步实现对电子数据信息完整性的保护，另一方面则应探索电子数据全面出示方式。研发高速化、自动化、专业化、智能化及综合化电子数据取证设备，搭建官方取证系统，将所获取的电子数据信息以云存储的方式固定，并设置一定的存储时间，在确保电子数据可验证的情况下兼顾可行性。同时，建立以保证质证方对电子数据完整信息可获取性为内容的电子数据全面出示制度，探索高效、通俗的电子数据表达方式。 再次，借鉴级别管辖制度以及直接证据概念，以电子数据所属的案件类型及其证据地位为标准，将电子数据分为四种类型，即重大案件的关键电子数据、重大案件的一般电子数据、普通案件的关键电子数据和普通案件的一般电子数据。并在此基础上借鉴两大诉讼法中已有的电子数据规则，将当前的民事电子证据规则作为第一层较为宽松的电子数据证据规则，将当前的刑事电子数据证据规则作为第二层较为严格的电子数据证据规则。仅对重大案件中的关键电子数据强制适用较为严格电子数据证据规则，而对其他的电子数据适用较宽松的规则，同时通过完善救济来对可能带来的风险进行管控。最后，为从根源上避免电子数据转化使用现象，应当逐渐取消证据种类法定化制度。
  • dc.description.abstract
  • The phenomenon of electronic data transformation and use refers to the phenomenon of using electronic data as traditional evidence for evidence collection， evidence giving, cross-examination and certification, such as converting electronic data into documentary evidence and expert opinion. Its essential characteristic is to apply the transformed traditional evidence rules to review electronic data, rather than just the form of electronic data. This phenomenon exists widely in practice, and is typically manifested as the documentary evidence of electronic data. For example, the court will review the WeChat chat screenshots provided by the party giving evidence as documentary evidence, without applying the evidence rules of electronic data. Empirical investigation has proved that the phenomenon of electronic data documentary evidence is widespread in criminal proceedings. According to statistics, the documentary evidence rate of some evidence materials is even close to 40%. At the same time, there are different evidence identification consequences after the transformation of electronic data into documentary evidence. Some are excluded because they cannot be verified with the original electronic data, and some are adopted for the reasons that the evidence is obtained according to law, the defendant has been confirmed, and the evidence can be mutually corroborated with other evidence.The causes of electronic data certification in criminal proceedings are as follows: the cross relationship of evidence classification under the legalization system of evidence types is the root cause of the phenomenon of electronic data transformation and use, the universality of the phenomenon is the inevitable result of the one-size-fits-all legislation background of electronic data evidence rules, the confusion of evidence expression mode and evidence type in judicial practice and the long-formed case handling habits further deepen the phenomenon. Admittedly, electronic data certification has not caused significant negative social impacts so far, such as causing unjust, false and wrong cases, but the existence does not mean reasonable, electronic data certification as a unique problem in the context of China's system should be paid attention to. In addition to the unified adjudication, the direct problem caused by electronic data certification is the loss of electronic data information integrity, and the resulting risk of electronic data three sex questioned, specifically, the authenticity of electronic data faces the problem of verification, the relevance of electronic data carrier is denied the risk and the legality of electronic data review is trapped in a formal dilemma. In addition to content information, electronic data also contains abundant accessory information and association traces, the existence of which is the basis for the construction and application of electronic data evidence rules. However, the documented converted electronic data often only retains content information, so the counter-evidence party often cannot effectively cross-examine the converted electronic data, and the value of the trial cannot be fully brought into play.In this regard, the article puts forward countermeasures from the purpose of reducing the incidence of electronic data conversion and use phenomenon and reducing the harm of electronic data conversion and use phenomenon.First of all, the three characteristics of transformed electronic data should be guaranteed by establishing a comprehensive electronic data display system and exploring the popularization of electronic data expression.Secondly, based on the hierarchical jurisdiction system and the concept of direct evidence, the electronic data is divided into four types, namely key electronic data of major cases, general electronic data of major cases, key electronic data of ordinary cases and general electronic data of ordinary cases.Based on the existing electronic data rules in the two major procedural laws, the current civil electronic evidence rules are regarded as the first layer of relatively loose electronic data evidence rules, and the current criminal electronic data evidence rules are regarded as the second layer of relatively strict electronic data evidence rules.Only the key electronic data in major cases are forced to apply more strict electronic data evidence rules, while the other electronic data are applied more relaxed rules, and the possible risks are controlled by improving the relief.Finally, in order to prevent the phenomenon of transforming electronic data into use, the system of legalization of types of evidence should be gradually abolished.In order to reduce the incidence of documentary evidence of electronic data and reduce its adverse effects, the paper puts forward that: Firstly, under the background of existing technical conditions and rules, the traceability of the electronic data transformation process is regarded as the key standard for the transformation of electronic data review. Secondly, in the forensics link, on the one hand, the protection of the integrity of electronic data information should be realized by relying on technological progress, and on the other hand, the comprehensive presentation method of electronic data should be explored. The high-speed, automated, professional, intelligent and integrated electronic data forensics equipment should be developed, and the official forensics system should be built. The obtained electronic data information should be fixed in the form of cloud storage, and a certain storage time should be set, taking into account the feasibility of ensuring the verifiability of electronic data. At the same time, the comprehensive presentation system of electronic data should be established to ensure the accessibility of the complete information of electronic data to the interrogation party, and the efficient and popular expression method of electronic data should be explored. Thirdly, referring to the level jurisdiction system and the concept of direct evidence, the electronic data should be divided into four types according to the case type and evidence status of the electronic data, namely, the key electronic data of major cases, the general electronic data of major cases, the key electronic data of ordinary cases and the general electronic data of ordinary cases. Based on the existing electronic data rules in the two major procedural laws, the current civil electronic evidence rules are regarded as the first layer of relatively loose electronic data evidence rules, and the current criminal electronic data evidence rules are regarded as the second layer of relatively strict electronic data evidence rules. Only the key electronic data in major cases are forced to apply more strict electronic data evidence rules, while the other electronic data are applied more relaxed rules, and the possible risks are controlled by improving the relief. Finally, in order to avoid the phenomenon of transforming electronic data into use, the legal system of evidence types should be gradually abolished.
  • dc.date.issued
  • 2024-06-14
  • dc.date.oralDefense
  • 2024-05-26
回到顶部