法治如同一种粘合剂,将社会各部分安稳地维系在一起。它给人们提供了途径,以便事先知晓权利和义务,并可围绕其进行协商。我拥有某样东西,你想要得到这样东西。你就需要与我就其价格进行洽谈而不能肆意地侵占。因此,在这个重要意义上,法律实际上是赋予了人们自由而非限制。人们习惯上将法治的价值主要归结于对权利及其相应义务的描绘。这种观点有一定道理,但其模糊了某些同等重要的因素,即:没有争议的准确解决——换言之,若没有准确的事实认定——权利和义务便都失去了意义。证据法有助于准确的事实认定,是法治中最为关键的一环;一部完善的证据法虽无法确保法治的实现,但却绝对是法治的必要组成部分。然而,构建完善的证据法绝非易事,因为证据规则属于诉讼理论的一部分;诉讼理论又包含于政府理论之中;而各国的政府理论可谓是千差万别。此外,对于如何最有效率和效果地寻找事实真相仍然存在分歧,且与之相关的是,当追求事实真相的价值与其它社会价值处于竞争关系时,孰优孰劣、如何取舍的问题也存在着分歧。最后,外行事实认定者(如陪审员)的参与会影响到诉讼程序的架构。总之,证据法至少要安置好五方面问题,即:架构问题、认识论问题、社会问题、管理问题和执行问题。 The rule of law is like an adhesive that keeps all parts of society securely together. It provides people with the means to know in advance rights and obligations and to negotiate around them. I have something, you want to get something like this. You need to negotiate with me on its price and can not arbitrarily occupy. Therefore, in this important sense, the law actually gives people freedom rather than restrictions. It is customary to attribute the value of the rule of law to the delineation of rights and their corresponding obligations. There is some truth to this view, but it obscures some of the equally important factors: an accurate and uncontroversial solution - in other words, the loss of meaning without rights and obligations. The law of evidence helps to establish accurate facts and is the most crucial part of the rule of law. Although a sound evidence law can not guarantee the realization of the rule of law, it is definitely an integral part of the rule of law. However, building a sound law of evidence is by no means easy because the rules of evidence are part of the theory of litigation; the theory of litigation is embedded in the theory of government; and the theory of government in different countries can vary widely. In addition, there is still disagreement as to how to find the truth most efficiently and effectively, and the related problem is that when the value of the pursuit of truth is in competition with other social values, which one is better and the other is the choice Differences. Finally, the involvement of lay persons, such as jurors, affects the structure of the proceedings. In short, at least the evidence law should be well placed in five areas: architecture, epistemology, social issues, management issues and implementation issues.