摘要
“大数据证据”的证据种类归属尚存各种争议。案例研究显示,大数据材料并不等同于“大数据证据”,能作为定案证据的大数据材料多可纳入法定证据体系,但亦出现独特的“大数据证据”。对“大数据证据”进行解构可知,无论是概念要素还是属性要素,“大数据证据”都展现出区别于现有法定证据种类的特质。在法定证据体系下,在现有分类中增加“大数据证据”这一证据种类,符合我国证据种类细分的制度语境,也是适配诉讼模式、证据审查体系、数字法治理念的新需要。因此,有必要将“大数据证据”作为一种独立的证据种类列明。而在相应制度构建方面,应保障“大数据证据”的全面开示,并在庭审中进行严格审查,同时完善法官对“大数据证据”的裁判说理,为其日后的实践运用奠定基础。
The classification of“big data evidence”remains controversial.Case studies show that big data materials are not equivalent to“big data evidence”,and most of the big data materials that can be used as final evidence can be included in the statutory evidence system,but there are also unique“big data evidence”.By deconstructing“big data evidence”,it can be seen that whether it is conceptual elements or attribute elements,“big data evidence”shows characteristics that are different from existing types of statutory evidence.Under the legal evidence system,adding“big data evidence”to the existing classification of evidence conforms to the institutional context of the subdivision of evidence types in China,and is also a new need to adapt to the litigation model,evidence review system,and the concept of digital rule of law.Therefore,it is necessary to list“big data evidence”as an independent type of evidence.In terms of the construction of the corresponding system,the full disclosure of“big data evidence”should be guaranteed,and strict review should be carried out in the trial,and judges’reasoning on“big data evidence”should be improved to lay the foundation for its future practical application.
作者
唐玉富
蔡能
TANG Yufu;CAI Neng(School of Law,Zhejiang Gongshang University,Hangzhou 310353,China;School of Philosophy and Law and Politics,Shanghai Normal University,Shanghai 200234,China)
出处
《重庆科技大学学报(社会科学版)》
2025年第3期47-57,共11页
Journal of Chongqing university of science and technology(social science edition)
基金
义乌市人民检察院委托项目“在线诉讼的检察监督机制研究”(1100KH0324028H)。
关键词
大数据证据
法定证据种类
独立的证据种类
大数据材料
电子数据
big data evidence
types of legal evidence
independent types of evidence
big data materials
electronic data
