• 首页
  • 期刊简介
  • 编委会
  • 投稿须知
  • 审稿指南
  • 订阅指南
  • 联系我们
引用本文:范智凯:《刑事诉讼法》修改中的证明标准理念匡正与规范建构,载《交大法学》2026年第4期,第165~176页。
Fan Zhikai, Reflection and Reconstruction of the Concepts of Criminal Standard of Proof— Against the Background of the Amendment to the Criminal Procedure Law, (4) SJTU LAW REVIEW 165-176 (2026).
【打印本页】   【下载PDF全文】   【查看/发表评论】  【下载PDF阅读器】  【关闭】
←前一篇|后一篇→ 过刊浏览    高级检索
本文已被:浏览 1445次   下载 668次 本文二维码信息
码上扫一扫!
分享到: 微信 更多
字体:加大+|默认|缩小-
《刑事诉讼法》修改中的证明标准理念匡正与规范建构
范智凯1
中国政法大学与美国西北大学
摘要:
在《刑事诉讼法》第四次修改的背景下,有必要匡正证明标准理念误区进而完善证明标准规范建构。以往的刑事证明标准理念未从“法官如何作出合理可接受的事实裁判”的内在主义视角出发,对证明标准功能预设与实施机制存在认识偏误。刑事证明标准的功能是确保事实认定得到证成,在实施机制上表现为事实认定者基于理性他者可接受理由、在程序对话过程中形成确信的主体间性标准。据此,未来的《刑事诉讼法》应确立证据裁判、自由心证等原则,将证明标准条文表述进一步优化为“证据足以排除合理怀疑”;应吸收庭审实质化改革成果,完善证人出庭作证、法官裁判说理等具体程序机制,从而建立以对话式证据调查为前提条件、以解释性证据评价为内在要求的事实认定体系。关键词
关键词:  刑事诉讼法修改 证明标准 理念误区 证成 主体间性
DOI:
分类号:
基金项目:国家社会科学基金重大项目“中国特色刑事证据理论体系研究”(项目编号: 18ZDA139)
Reflection and Reconstruction of the Concepts of Criminal Standard of Proof— Against the Background of the Amendment to the Criminal Procedure Law
Fan Zhikai
Abstract:
Under the background of the fourth amendment to the Criminal Procedure Law, it is necessary to rectify the misconceptions regarding the Standard of Proof (SoP) and optimize its normative construction. The prevailing conceptualization of the SoP has failed to adopt an internalist perspective about “how a judge renders a plausible and acceptable fact finding adjudication”, so that it misunderstands the function and mechanisms of the SoP. The function of SoP is to ensure that the fact-finding is justified; the mechanism is as an intersubjective standard whereby the fact-finders convict on the basis of reasons acceptable to a rational other within a dialogue process. Accordingly, the future Criminal Procedure Law should establish principles such as Rational Proof and Free Evaluation of Evidence, and further refine the textual formulation of SoP as “the evidence is reliable and sufficient to beyond any reasonable doubt”. Concurrently, it should incorporate the reform achievements such as the substantiation of court trials, and refine specific procedural mechanisms including the mechanism for witnesses to testify in court and the mechanism for reasoned judgments, thereby establishing a fact-finding system that is constituted on dialogic evidentiary process and explanationism-model of evidence evaluation.
Key words:  Amendment to the Criminal Procedure Law, Standard of Proof, Misconceptions, Justification, Intersubjectivity
您是本站第  7079893  位访问者!沪交ICP备20180131号
版权所有:《交大法学》编辑部
地址:上海市徐汇区华山路1954号上海交通大学慧谷科技楼    邮政编码:200030
电话:021-62933317   电子邮箱:lawreview@sjtu.edu.cn
技术支持:北京勤云科技发展有限公司