摘要
我国司法解释的二元化体制,导致刑事诉讼法相关司法解释在关键术语上出现分歧。对于"刑讯逼供等非法方法",最高人民法院的司法解释将"等非法方法"进行了不适当的限缩解释,并且对"刑讯逼供"设置了双重审查标准,因此不利于非法言词证据排除规则的实施,而最高人民检察院的司法解释则更为合理。最高人民法院及最高人民检察院的司法解释均规定刑讯逼供要给嫌疑人造成"剧烈疼痛或痛苦",这一标准缺乏可操作性,应当从违法取供行为本身的性质和程度出发设置"客观性标准"以判断是否构成刑讯逼供。对于实践中合法性难以判断的威胁、引诱和欺骗性取证方法,可以建立程序法(证据法)判例制度,使非法证据排除规则在实践中得以顺利实施。
Because of dualization of China＇ s judicial interpretation system, there are difference between the judicial interpreta- tions about some critical terminology in Criminal Procedure Law. To what is torture and other illegal measures, the judicial inter- pretation of Supreme People＇s Court limit the scope of other illegal measures, and set up a double- deck criterion of torture, which will hinder the implementation of exclusionary rule of hearsay evidence. In contrast, the judicial interpretation of Supreme People~ Procuratorate is more reasonable. The requirement of severe pain or suffering standard lack operability, and objective standard from the illegal evidence gathering act is more favorable. The judicial precedent system of procedure law should be set up to make it easy to judge the validity of threat, lure and deceit in evidence gathering, which will make exclusionary rule imple- mented more smoothly.
出处
《法学论坛》
CSSCI
北大核心
2014年第1期53-62,共10页
Legal Forum
基金
教育部"新世纪优秀人才支持计划"资助项目<隐形刑事诉讼法>(NCET-10-0602)的部分研究成果
关键词
司法解释
刑讯逼供
等非法方法
judicial interpretation
torture
illegal measures
