论文部分内容阅读
逮捕,作为限制人身自由最严厉的一种强制措施,在以往的司法实践中,对于保障刑事诉讼活动的顺利进行,曾起到了不可抹煞的作用。但实践证明,只有“主要犯罪事实已经查清”才能捕,即把批捕的证据要求与起诉、审判的证据要求相混同的做法,已不能完全适应与犯罪作斗争的实际需要。因此,正确理解和适用修改后的刑事诉讼法有关逮捕的证据条件,准确区分和把握批捕的证据要求与起诉、审判的证据要求之异同,对今后的办案实践显得非常必要。一、批捕、起诉、审判证据的法定条件 (一)对逮捕证据条件的理解。修改后的刑事诉讼法第六十条完整地保留了逮捕的刑罚条件和社会危险性条件,将原证据条件“主要犯罪事实已经查清”变更为“有证据证明有犯罪事实”。其立法
Arrests, as the most severe coercive measure to restrict the freedom of the person, have played an indispensable role in ensuring the smooth progress of criminal proceedings in the judicial practice in the past. However, practice has proved that only “the main fact of crime has been ascertained” can be captured. That is to say, the practice of confusing the evidentiary requirements of arrest with the evidentiary requirements of prosecution and trial can not fully meet the actual need of combating crime. Therefore, it is very necessary for us to correctly understand and apply the modified evidence-based conditions of criminal procedure law on arrest, to accurately distinguish and grasp the similarities and differences between the evidence requirements of arrest and arrest and the evidence requirements of prosecution and trial. First, the arrest, prosecution, trial of the statutory conditions of evidence (A) of the conditions for the evidence of arrest. Article 60 of the amended Criminal Procedural Law completely retains the conditions of criminal punishment and social conditions of arrest, changing the original evidence condition “the major criminal facts have been found” to “there is evidence that there are criminal facts” . Its legislation