在我国的司法实践当中,由于公安机关“两权共享”机构的存在,实物证据往往仅仅通过补齐手续等方式完成证据的转化,而极少从证据能力方面予以审查,而言词证据能否在刑事诉讼中使用仍众说纷纭。由于行政执法活动中收集的证据一般不具有回复性以及行政机关收集的实物证据与刑事侦查机关获取的证据并无实质上的差异,一些学者主张这些实物证据应当被允许直接在刑事诉讼中使用。但是刑事证据确立了诸如无罪推定原则、证据合法原则和直接言词原则等诸多基本原则,其在证据的证据能力及证明力等方面具有更为严格的要求,如果仅仅因为行政机关收集证据的方式与侦查机关没有实质性的差异而允许行政执法证据在较低程序保障条件下进入刑事诉讼领域,对于被追诉人来说则具有极大的风险,可能实质地降低其权利保障。 In our country’s judicial practice, because of the existence of the public security organs “two rights sharing ” institutions, the physical evidence often only completes the transformation of evidence through the formalities of filling and so on, but seldom examines the evidence ability, Whether or not to use it in criminal proceedings is still controversial. Because the evidence collected in administrative law enforcement activities is generally not responsive and there is no material difference between the actual evidence collected by administrative organs and the evidence obtained by criminal investigation agencies, some scholars claim that these kinds of physical evidence should be allowed to be used directly in criminal proceedings. However, criminal evidence has established many basic principles such as the principle of presumption of innocence, the law of evidence legality and the principle of direct speech, which have more stringent requirements on the evidential power and the proof power of evidence. Only because of the way in which the administrative organ collects evidence There is no substantive difference with the investigation organ and allowing the evidence of administrative law enforcement to enter the field of criminal procedure under the conditions of a lower procedural guarantee has a great risk to the prosecutors and may substantially reduce the protection of their rights.