刑事补强证据规则对错判无辜者案件的影响——基于苏格兰政府《废除刑事补强证据规则学术专家组报告》

赵飞龙

downloadPDF
引用本文: 赵飞龙. 刑事补强证据规则对错判无辜者案件的影响——基于苏格兰政府《废除刑事补强证据规则学术专家组报告》[J]. 郑州轻工业学院学报（社会科学版）, 2020, 21(3): 80-90. doi: 10.12186/2020.03.012
shu

刑事补强证据规则对错判无辜者案件的影响——基于苏格兰政府《废除刑事补强证据规则学术专家组报告》

  • 西南政法大学 法学院, 重庆 401120

    • 作者简介: 赵飞龙(1991-),男,陕西省延长县人,西南政法大学博士研究生,主要研究方向:刑事诉讼法、证据法。;

  • 基金项目: 最高人民检察院检察理论研究一般课题（GJ2019C30）

  • 中图分类号: D915.3

The impact of criminal corroboration requirement on wrongful convictions of innocents -Based on The Post-corroboration Safeguards Review Report of the Academic Expert Group of Scottish government

  • Received Date: 2020-03-22

    CLC number: D915.3

  • 摘要: 错判无辜者是刑事诉讼难以摆脱的梦魇，其成因主要涉及证据因素、环境因素和认知因素三个方面。其中，证据因素是错判无辜者最具体的原因，导致证据潜在不可信的原因主要有环境污染、证人主观不能和证据客观不能三种。刑事补强证据规则的适用通过补充性目的论证，一方面能够以可靠性规则的形式限制法官任意释法；另一方面能够以原子模式中补充性的证明，要求限制整体主义中融贯性论证的可能性选择，即通过新增补强证据的独立证明来增强主证据的指向性，进而作出排他性的整体认定。
    1. [1]

      惠特曼.合理怀疑的起源:刑事审判的神学根基[M].佀化强,李伟,译.北京:中国政法大学出版社,2016:24-26.

    2. [2]

      MACFARLANE B A. Convicting the innocent:A triple failure of the justice system[J].Manitoba Law Journal,2006(3):403.

    3. [3]

      BEDAU H A,RADELET M L.Miscarriages of justice in potentially capital cases[J].Stanford Law Review,1987(1):21.

    4. [4]

      RATTNER A.Convicted but innocent:Wrongful conviction and the criminal justice system[J].Law & Human Behavior,1988(3):283.

    5. [5]

      GEORGE H R.Report of the governor's commission on capital punishment[EB/OL].(2012-10-19)[2019-09-30].http://illinoismurderindictments.law.northwestern.edu/docs/Illinois_Moratorium_Commission_complete-report.pdf.

    6. [6]

      HUFF C R,KILLIAS M.Wrong convictions and miscarriages of justice:Causes and remedies in North American and European criminal justice system[M]. New York:Routledge, 2013:15-16.

    7. [7]

      ZALMAN, MARVIN.An integrated justice model of wrongful convictions[J].Social Science Electronic Publishing,2011(3):1465.

    8. [8]

      GARRETT,BRANDON L.Convicting the innocent:Where criminal prosecutions go wrong[M].Cambridge:Harvard University Press,2012.

    9. [9]

      Federal/Provincial/Territorial Heads of Prosecutions Committee Working Group. Report on the prevention of miscarriages of justice[EB/OL].(2015-01-07)[2019-09-30].https://www.justice.gc.ca/eng/rp-pr/cj-jp/ccr-rc/pmj-pej/pmj-pej.pdf.

    10. [10]

      Federal/Provincial/Territorial Heads of Prosecutions Subcommittee on the Prevention of Wrongful Convictions. The path to justice:Preventing wrongful convictions[EB/OL].(2014-11-19)[2019-09-30].https://www.ppsc-sppc.gc.ca/eng/pub/ptj-spj/ptj-spj-eng.pdf.

    11. [11]

      BRANDON, RUTH, DAVIES,et al.Wrongful imprisonment:Mistaken convictions and their consequences[M].Crows Nest:Allen and Unwin, 1973:121.

    12. [12]

      CHRISJE B.Tunnel vision:Belief perseverance and bias confirmation:Only humans?[M]//HUFF C R,KILLIAS M.Wrong convictions and miscarriages of justice:Causes and remedies in North American and European criminal justice system.New York:Routledge, 2013:171-178.

    13. [13]

      达恩史戴特.法官的被害人[M].郑惠芬,译.新北:卫城出版社,2016:142.

    14. [14]

      FINDLEY K A,SCOTT M S.The multiple dimensions of tunnel vision in criminal cases[EB/OL].(2006-06-13)[2019-09-30].https://media.law.wisc.edu/m/hyjb3/findley_scott_final.pdf.

    15. [15]

      DANIEL Y A.The psychology of speaker identification and earwitness memory[M]//LINDSAY R C L,ROSS D F.The handbook of eyewitness psychology.New York:Psychology Press,2012:101-136.

    16. [16]

      TARA L,ORCHARD A,DANIEL Y.The effect of whispers,voice sample duration,and voice distinctiveness on criminal speaker identification[J].Applied Cognitive Psychology,1955(3):249.

    17. [17]

      MCGORRERY P,MCMAHON M.A fair hearing:Earwitness identification and voice identification parades[J].The International Journal of Evidence and Proof,2017(3):262.

    18. [18]

      ROBERTS A.The problem of mistaken identification:Some obsercations on process[J].The International Journal of Evidence and Proof,2004(2):100.

    19. [19]

      ELIZABETH F L.Eyewitness testimony[M].Cambridge:Harvard University Press,1996:40.

    20. [20]

      BRIAN L C,STEVEN D P.Mistaken identity:The eyewitness,psychology and the law[M]. Cambridge:Cambridge University Press,1995:101-102.

    21. [21]

      THOMPSON S G.Beyond a reasonable doubt? Reconsidering uncorroborated eyewitness identification testimony[J].University of California Davis Law Review,2008(4):1487.

    22. [22]

      BRIAN L C,STEVEN D P.Juror sensitivity to eyewitness identification evidence[J].Law and Human Behavior,1990(2):185.

    23. [23]

      NEUSCHATZ J S,LAWSON D S,SWANNER J K,et al.The effects of accomplice witnesses and jailhouse informants on jury decision making[J].Law and Human Behavior,2008(2):137.

    24. [24]

      KEITH A F.Judicial gatekeeping of suspect evidence:Due process and evidentiary rules in the age of innocence[J].Georgia Law Review,2013(3):723.

    25. [25]

      Manitoba Justice.The inquiry regarding Thomas Sophonow[EB/OL].(2000-07-12)[2019-09-30].https://digitalcollection.gov.mb.ca/awweb/pdfopener?smd=1&did=12713&md=1.

    26. [26]

      RICHARD A L,RICHARD J O.Consequences of false confessions:Deprivations of liberty and miscarriages of justice in the age of psychological interrogation[J].Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology,1998(2):429.

    27. [27]

      Committee on Identifying the Needs of the Forensic Sciences Community.National research council strengthening forensic science in the United States:A path forward[EB/OL].(2009-08-25)[2019-09-30].https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/nij/grants/228091.pdf.

    28. [28]

      STEPHEN T G.Inquiry into pediatric forensic pathology in ontario[EB/OL].(2008-10-31)[2019-09-30].https://www.attorneygeneral.jus.gov.on.ca/inquiries/goudge/report/v2_en_pdf/Vol_2_Eng.pdf.

    29. [29]

      阿列克西.法律论证理论:作为法律证立理论的理性论辩理论[M].舒国滢,译.北京:中国法制出版社,2002:225-232.

    30. [30]

      瓦格纳,范科本,克罗伯格.锚定叙事理论:刑事证据心理学[M].卢俐利,译.北京:中国政法大学出版社,2019:29.

    31. [31]

      赵飞龙.比较与重述:刑事补强证据规则的概念重构[J].青海师范大学学报(哲学社会科学版),2019(6):69.

    32. [32]

      林喜芬.证明理性化与刑事定罪标准之调整:基于防控司法错误的视角[J].法制与社会发展,2011(1):63.

    1. [1]

      孙远太 , 孙冰清 . 基层治理数字化转型:实践图景、驱动因素与推进路径. 郑州轻工业大学学报（社会科学版）, 2024, 25(6): 34-42. doi: 10.12186/2024.06.005

  • 加载中
WeChat 点击查看大图
计量
  • PDF下载量:  4
  • 文章访问数:  1256
  • 引证文献数: 0
文章相关
  • 收稿日期:  2020-03-22
通讯作者: 陈斌, bchen63@163.com
  • 1. 

    沈阳化工大学材料科学与工程学院 沈阳 110142

  1. 本站搜索
  2. 百度学术搜索
  3. 万方数据库搜索
  4. CNKI搜索

刑事补强证据规则对错判无辜者案件的影响——基于苏格兰政府《废除刑事补强证据规则学术专家组报告》

    作者简介:赵飞龙(1991-),男,陕西省延长县人,西南政法大学博士研究生,主要研究方向:刑事诉讼法、证据法。
  • 西南政法大学 法学院, 重庆 401120
  • 收稿日期: 2020-03-22
基金项目:  最高人民检察院检察理论研究一般课题（GJ2019C30）

摘要: 错判无辜者是刑事诉讼难以摆脱的梦魇，其成因主要涉及证据因素、环境因素和认知因素三个方面。其中，证据因素是错判无辜者最具体的原因，导致证据潜在不可信的原因主要有环境污染、证人主观不能和证据客观不能三种。刑事补强证据规则的适用通过补充性目的论证，一方面能够以可靠性规则的形式限制法官任意释法；另一方面能够以原子模式中补充性的证明，要求限制整体主义中融贯性论证的可能性选择，即通过新增补强证据的独立证明来增强主证据的指向性，进而作出排他性的整体认定。


参考文献 (32)

目录

/

返回文章

版权所有 © 郑州轻工业大学学报编辑部

地址：河南省郑州市科学大道136号    邮编：450001

本系统由北京仁和汇智信息技术有限公司开发 技术支持： info@rhhz.net