论文部分内容阅读
法制史上共出现过三种证据评价规则:神意证据评价规则、法定证据评价规则、自由心证评价原则。我国刑事诉讼证据评价规则在形式上仍然属于自由心证体系,但是,与典型的、国际通行的自由心证原则又有着明显的区别,表现在强调直接证据的作用,重视证据的数量、要求达到证据充分的程度,证明标准的要求较高。这与我国历来的认识论立场、法官素质、书面证据的使用、审判分离的司法实际状况有关。我国在完善证据评价规则时应谨慎地借鉴典型的自由心证原则,同时也要注意防范其弊端。
There are three rules of evidence evaluation in the history of legal system: the rule of divine evidence evaluation, the rule of statutory evidence evaluation and the principle of free evaluation of evidence. The rules of evaluation of criminal procedure evidence in our country still belong to the system of free proof of evidence in form. However, there are obvious differences with the typical and internationally accepted principles of free testimony, which emphasize the role of direct evidence, the number of evidence, the requirement of reaching The level of evidence is sufficient to justify the higher standards. This is related to the historical epistemological position of our country, the quality of judges, the use of written evidence, and the judicial reality of judicial separation. In improving the rules of evidence evaluation, our country should carefully learn from the typical principle of free proof and at the same time pay attention to prevent its disadvantages.