论文部分内容阅读
2012年刑事诉讼法将“排除合理怀疑”引入到“证据确实、充分”证明标准中。“证据确实、充分”的客观化要求与增加的“排除合理怀疑”标准在认识论维度和价值维度上存在较大差异。前者确立的是“真”之条件;后者表达的是“真”之信念。前者实质是一种本质主义和还原主义;后者则以社会建构论为真理观。“证据确实、充分”证明标准没有完全摆脱客观真实的情结。“排除合理怀疑”的引入有助于回归证明标准的本质。“排除合理怀疑”标准的有效适用需要“以审判为中心”的程序性保障。
In 2012, the Criminal Procedure Law introduced “excluding reasonable doubt ” into the standard of “evidence is true and sufficient ”. There is a big difference in the epistemological dimension and the value dimension between the objective requirement of “evidence is true and sufficient” and the standard of “excluding reasonable doubt”. The former establishes the condition of “true”; the latter expresses the belief of “true”. The former is essentially a kind of essentialism and reductionism; the latter takes the social construction theory as the truth view. “Evidence is true, full ” Proof of the standard did not completely get rid of the objective real complex. The introduction of “excluding reasonable suspicions” helps to return to the essence of the standard of proof. The effective application of the criterion of “excluding reasonable doubt” requires the procedural guarantee of “trial-centered”.