摘要
在特定的意义上,诉讼证明中的事实确信,可以区分为两种确信类型,一种是客观的确信,一种是合情的确信。这两种确信可以分别用来说明中国多年来在规范上坚持的证明标准和西方国家的一般定罪标准。近年来中国学界在讨论证明标准改革问题时存在着许多哲学话语的误用,改革论者多不当地抹杀了中西证明标准的实质区别,而坚持论者则滥用了哲学主义话语。我们需要将已有的论争从哲学话语迷雾中解救出来,开展真正重要的工作,即:分析两种确信在具体认识论逻辑上存在的不同以及所带来的法律效应,进而以此解析中国与西方国家在刑事诉讼法规定和实践上的许多重大差异,以及中国法律的诸多变革所需的认识论前提。
The inner conviction in criminal proof can be divided into two types: objective conviction and reasonable conviction. These two types of inner conviction can respectively explain the long-held standard of proof in China and the general standard of proof in Western countries. In recent years,Chinese scholars frequently misuse philosophical theories when discussing the reform of our standard of proof.Progressives often neglect the actual differences between the Chinese Standard of proof and the Western standards of proof,while people who stick to traditional Chinese standard of proof misuse many philosophical theories. Because the previous researches fall into a philosophical mist,people have not begun the really important work: to discern the logical differences between the two types of inner conviction,and the legal effects brought about by such differences,so as to explain some significant differences between Chinese and Western criminal laws and practice,and to provide a theoretical basis for further reform of the Chinese Procedure Law.
出处
《国家检察官学院学报》
CSSCI
北大核心
2016年第5期124-133,175,共10页
Journal of National Prosecutors College
基金
教育部新世纪优秀人才支持计划(NCET-13-0982)的阶段性成果
四川省创新团队"西部民族法治发展与创新研究"(15TD0049)
西南民族大学研究生学位点建设项目(2016XWDS0301)的研究成果
关键词
定罪证明标准
客观确信
合情确信
哲学误用
Standard of Proof for Conviction
Objective Conviction
Reasonable Conviction
Philosophical Misuse
