论文部分内容阅读
反证法是通过证明与原论题相矛盾的反论题的虚假性,从而确定原论题的真实性的间接证明方法。这种证明方法由于采取的是充分条件假言推理的否定后件式,因而极富逻辑性,具有无可辩驳的力量。正因为如此,反证法已在法庭辩论中广泛运用,故本文特谈谈反证法在法庭辩论中的特殊功效。 一、运用反证法证实被告人的罪行 在法庭辩论中,有些被告人往往采取诡辩或者不承认的方式否定自己的罪行。此时,公诉人只要掌握了被告人确凿的犯罪证据,就可运用反证法证实被告人的罪行,使被告人认罪服法。例如,1990年8月15日晚,某百货商店仓库被盗。公安人员经现场勘察,分析认为,仓库位置比较隐蔽,外部人员不可能作案,且作案现场留下了本店职工王某的指纹,于是断定是王某作案。人民检察院依法对王某提起公诉。在法庭辩论阶段,王某一面辩解说:“发案那天晚上他通宵都在其岳母家打麻将,没有作案时间,因此指控他犯盗窃罪纯属冤枉。公
Proof-of-evidence is an indirect method of proving the authenticity of the original thesis by proving the falsity of contradictory questions contradicting the original thesis. This method of proof is highly logical and irrefutable because it adopts the negative consequent of sufficient conditional hypothetical reasoning. Because of this, the law of reverse testimony has been widely used in the courtroom debate, so this article specifically talks about the special effects of counter-testimony in the courtroom debate. I. Defending the Defendant by Proof of Defectives In the courtroom debate, some defendants often deny their crimes in a sophistry or non-recognition. At this point, as long as the public prosecutor grasped the accused conclusive evidence of crime, you can use proof to prove the defendant’s crime, so that the accused plead guilty. For example, a department store warehouse was stolen on the evening of 15 August 1990. Public security personnel on the spot investigation, the analysis believes that the storage location is more subtle, outsiders can not commit crimes, and the scene of the crime left our restaurant staff Wang fingerprint, so concluded that Wang committing the crime. People’s Procuratorate prosecuted Wang according to law. During the court debate, Wang argued that “he was playing mahjong all night at his mother-in-law’s house that night, and there was no time for committing the crime, so he accused him of committing theft as purely innocent.”