论美国学界对证据排除规则的实证研究

发布时间：2018-05-27 06:03

本文选题：非法证据排除 + 实证研究　；参考：《中国政法大学》2010年硕士论文

【摘要】： 笔者对非法证据排除规则以及实证研究的相关概念做简单的介绍,界定本文概念范围,在此基础上我们以非法证据排除规则为落脚点,通过研究美国关于非法证据排除规则的实证研究,来总结出一些对我国实证研究方法以及非法证据排除有价值的信息。笔者对于美国非法证据排除规则实证研究的相关背景进行了阐述,美国是在非法证据排除方面规定最为系统的国家,也是执行的最为坚决最为彻底的国家,美国建立了各种强制排除的规则,并在此基础上规定了一定的具体例外规则。但是非法证据规则在美国褒贬不一,学者们和实践家们对于非法证据排除规则呈现出截然相对的两种论争观点,批评者认为非法证据排除规则使罪犯逃之夭夭,赞成者认为非法证据排除规则使美国宪法第四修正案具有可操作性,保护人权,维护宪法和法律的尊严,双方均拿出各自的理由进行论证。在这种对非法证据仁者见仁,智者见智的背景下,学者们展开了各自的实证研究来论证自己的观点,本文笔者详细列出了两个有关美国非法证据排除规则的典型实证研究的具体内容,即美国法院与公众对第四修正案理解的实证研究和非法证据排除规则惩戒作用的实证研究,具体介绍了研究的设计、结果的得出、结论的分析以及研究过程的分析等等,这些实证研究对我国研究方法以及实体规则的构建都有着很重要的启示。在研究方法上,使我们更加认识到了实证研究方法是推动中国刑事司法领域研究方法的转型,对实证研究方法有了进一步的深刻的认识,在非法证据排除规则的实证研究方法方面得出了技术性的指导,比如研究方法的选择,衡量指标的确定等等。排除规则具体研究过程中各种方法的利弊权衡,成本收益的分析,今后排除规则可能涉及的领域,具体包括分析违法行为,研究必须比较警官的非法行为与警官实现公众安全行为之间的比率,研究必须考虑如何比较不同类型的警官违法行为,以及确定这些违法行为与警官维护公众安全的合法行为之间的比率,研究尽可能的排除其他造成警官违法行为的原因性解释的影响等等内容,都为我国开展非法证据排除规则的实证研究提供了前车之鉴。在实体规则方面,我国目前并不存在完整意义上的非法证据排除规则,通过对美国学者有关非法证据排除规则的实证研究,为今后我国构建非法证据排除规则提供了实践基础,同时我们更加意识到了我国目前法律规定的单薄,笔者对于今后我国非法证据排除规则的构建,分别在立法、司法、执法方面提出了一些完善的建议。
[Abstract]:The author makes a brief introduction to the exclusion rules of illegal evidence and the related concepts of empirical research, and defines the scope of the concept in this paper. On this basis, we take the rule of exclusion of illegal evidence as the foothold. Through the empirical research on the exclusion rules of illegal evidence in the United States, the paper summarizes some valuable information on the empirical research methods and exclusions of illegal evidence in China. The author expounds the relevant background of the empirical study on the exclusionary rules of illegal evidence in the United States. The United States is the most systematic country in the exclusion of illegal evidence, and the most resolute and thorough country to enforce it. The United States has established various rules of compulsory exclusion, and on this basis has stipulated certain specific exception rules. However, the rules of illegal evidence are mixed in the United States. Scholars and practitioners have two opposite arguments about the rule of exclusion of illegal evidence. Critics believe that the rule of exclusion of illegal evidence causes criminals to escape. The proponents believe that the exclusion rule of illegal evidence makes the fourth Amendment operational, protects human rights, and upholds the dignity of the Constitution and the law. Against the background of different opinions and different opinions on illegal evidence, scholars have conducted their own empirical studies to demonstrate their views. In this paper, the author lists in detail two typical empirical studies on the exclusion rules of illegal evidence in the United States, that is, the empirical study on the understanding of the fourth Amendment between American courts and the public, and the empirical study on the disciplinary effect of the exclusionary rules of illegal evidence. This paper introduces the design of the research, the conclusion of the research, the analysis of the conclusion and the analysis of the research process, etc. These empirical studies have important implications for the research methods and the construction of substantive rules in China. In terms of research methods, it makes us realize that the empirical research method is to promote the transformation of the research methods in the field of criminal justice in China, and we have a deeper understanding of the empirical research methods. In the empirical research of illegal evidence exclusion rules, technical guidance is obtained, such as the choice of research methods, the determination of measurement indicators, and so on. The advantages and disadvantages of various methods in the specific research process of exclusion rules, the analysis of cost and benefit, the areas that the exclusion rules may involve in the future, including the analysis of illegal acts, The study must compare the ratio between the illegal conduct of a police officer and the conduct of a police officer to achieve public safety, and the study must consider how to compare different types of police officers' illegal conduct, And to determine the ratio between these violations and the lawful acts of police officers to maintain public safety, and to study the effects of excluding as much as possible other causal interpretations of police officers' violations, For our country to carry out the rule of illegal evidence exclusion empirical research provides a warning. In the aspect of substantive rules, there are no complete exclusionary rules of illegal evidence in our country at present. Through the empirical study on the exclusion rules of illegal evidence by American scholars, it provides a practical basis for the construction of exclusionary rules of illegal evidence in China in the future. At the same time, we are more aware of the weakness of our current law, the author of the future illegal evidence exclusion rule construction, respectively in legislation, justice, law enforcement put forward some perfect suggestions.
【学位授予单位】：中国政法大学
【学位级别】：硕士
【学位授予年份】：2010
【分类号】：D971.2;D915.13

【引证文献】