论文部分内容阅读
刑事判决书证据说理状况的实证研究表明,法官一般仅对控辩双方有争议的证据事项进行说理,没有争议的事项则不会主动说理;法官在证据说理中力求实现“证据——事实”对应,极少展示自己对证据推论的心证过程;法官还经常采取模糊说理的方式,从证据直接跳跃到结论事实,而不说明理由和根据。因此,我国刑事判决书中的证据说理状况可概括为“回应型说理”、“放映型说理”、“模糊型说理”。证据说理的不充分是由多种因素导致的,在提高司法公信力的改革背景下,从保障当事人知情权和救济权的角度出发,判决书中的证据说理也应当进行相应改革。
The empirical research on the evidence rationale of criminal judgments shows that judges usually only deal with controversial evidence items of both prosecutors and defense parties, and that no controversial issues will not take the initiative to justify. The judge seeks to achieve “Evidence - Factual” Corresponding, seldom show their own evidence of evidence of the evidentiary process; the judge also often take the method of fuzzy reasoning, jumping from the evidence to the conclusion of the fact, not to explain the reasons and grounds. Therefore, the state of evidence reasoning in criminal judgments in our country can be summarized as “response theory ”, “projection theory ”, “fuzzy theory ”. Inadequate evidence reasoning is caused by a variety of factors. Under the background of reform that enhances the credibility of the judiciary, from the perspective of protecting the parties’ right to information and remedy, the evidence justification in judgments should be reformed accordingly.