论文部分内容阅读
囿于传统的分类方法,以及对推定基础的单一化解释,我国学术界对于推定的研究尚处于比较浅的层次,司法实践中推定的适用也处于比较混乱的状态。推定的基础应为政策考量与价值权衡而不仅仅是盖然性。从多元的推定基础出发,可以将推定分为政策保护型推定、政策负担型推定、规则预设型推定以及纯粹盖然性推定。不同类型的推定其证据法效果及反驳规则也不统一。基于民事法和刑事法的区别,即使同类推定其反驳规则也应有差异。
Due to the traditional classification methods and the single explanation of the basis of presumption, the research on presumption in our academic circles is still at a relatively shallow level, and the application of presumptions in judicial practice is in a rather chaotic situation. The presumption should be based on a trade-off between policy considerations and values rather than mere probabilities. Based on the multiple presumptions, the presumptions can be divided into policy-based presumption, policy-based presumption, rule-based presumption, and pure guessing. Different types of presumption of evidence law and rebuttal rules are not uniform. On the basis of the difference between civil law and criminal law, there should be differences even if the same kind of presumption of their refutation rules.