«上一篇/Previous Article|本期目录/Table of Contents|下一篇/Next Article»

《南京师大学报》（社会科学版）[ISSN:1006-6977/CN:61-1281/TN]

卷:

期数:

2019年01期

页码:

117

栏目:

法学研究

出版日期:

2019-01-25

文章信息/Info

Title:

Reviewing Rules Governing Supervision Evidence from thePerspective of Procedural Justice

作者:

夏 伟 刘艳红

东南大学法学院，南京 211100

Author(s):

XIA Wei;  LIU Yanhong

关键词:

法治反腐; 认识-价值二元论; 证据规则; 程序正义

Keywords:

law-based anti-corruption;  epistemological and axiological dualism;  rules of evidence;  proceduraljustice

摘要:

现代证据规则的构造既要从认识论层面理解证据与事实之间的主观因果关系，又要从价值论层面贯彻当事人主义的程序正义理念。为实现独立监察的目标设定，《监察法》确立了以监察为中心的证据规则，有效地集中了反腐资源、提升了反腐效率。然而，选择性吸收《刑事诉讼法》部分内容所形成的监察证据规则，存在虚置证据转化机制、过分倚赖言词证据以及排除非法证据不充分等有违程序正义的法治隐忧。为重塑监察证据规则的法治模式，一方面要借由发挥《监察法》第33 条第2 款的“??任性功能”，制定监察立法的实施细则，以刑事审判为标准补正监察证据规范的内容；另一方面要通过对刑事程序与实体立法的必要调整，塑造监察证据收集、固定、审查和运用的过程监督以及刑事责任机制。

Abstract:

In building the rules governing the collection and use of evidence at present, we should not onlyunderstand the subjective causality between the evidence and the facts at the epistemological level, but shouldalso carry out the principle of procedural justice embodied in the adversary system at the axiological level.In order to ensure independent supervision, the Supervision Law establishes the rules of evidence whichare centered on the supervision process. This has effectively concentrated the anti-corruption resources andimproved the efficiency of anti-corruption activities. However, selectively absorbing the rules of evidence fromthe Criminal Procedure Law has the risks of violating the principle of procedural justice required by rule oflaw: for example, neglecting the evidence conversion mechanism, excessively relying on verbal evidence andinadequately excluding illegal evidence. In order to reshape the legal model of the rules governing supervisionevidence, on the one hand, we should use the“ delegation function” entailed by Provision 2 of Article 32 inthe Supervision Law to formulate detailed rules governing supervision legislation and take criminal trial as thestandard to make up for the possible inadequacies in the content of the rules governing supervision evidence.On the other hand, we should adjust the criminal procedure and substantive legislation so as to regulate theprocess of collecting, confirming, reviewing and using the evidence for supervision and to shape the mechanismof determining criminal liability.

备注/Memo

备注/Memo:

夏伟，东南大学法学院博士研究生，东南大学“反腐败法治研究中心”特约研究员（ 南京 211100）；刘艳红，法学博士，东南大学法学院教授、博士生导师，东南大学“反腐败法治研究中心”研究员，长江学者特聘教授（ 南京 211100）。本文是2018年东南大学中央基本业务经费资助项目（2242018S30029）、江苏高校哲学社会科学重点研究基地“反腐败法治研究中心”项目（2015JDXM004）研究成果。

常用功能

更新日期/Last Update: 2019-01-25