我国证人作证法律制度存在的缺陷及完善措施

在我国刑事司法实践中，证人出庭率低的现象普遍存在，致使很多案件无法当庭质证，不仅妨碍了直接言词原则的贯彻实施，而且大大降低了诉讼效率，严重者甚至可能导致冤假错案。其原因是，立法规定不明确，证人保护制度、证人补偿制度不健全。对此，我国应当尽快完善证人作证制度。证人保护及对证人的经济补偿制度。     

论我国刑事证人权利之完善

刑事证人的证言对于查明案件事实具有不可替代性。然而，在司法实践中证人作证的现状不容乐观，证人履行作证义务的积极性、主动性不强，出庭率低。究其原因主要在于证人权利保障得不到落实，现有法律对于证人权利体系的构建不完善，可操作性差。要解决当前证人作证所面临的困境，必须充分重视证人权利的保障，加强对证人及其近亲属人身安全的保护是证人权利保障，完善对证人保护的可操作性，确立包括污点证人的作证豁免权制度、证人作证的经济补偿制度、证人免证特权制度等内容，以形成全面的证人权利保障体系。     

论我国刑事诉讼中证人作证方式的本土理性与改良

刑事诉讼中,我国证人证言多以书面形式呈送法庭,证人出庭作证比例较低,在证人出庭作证的案件中,还有证人屏蔽系统作证等方式,很多学者批评我国此种书面证言为主、出庭作证为辅的证人作证方式.但是,依据我国司法裁判体制,此种证人作证方式具有一定的合理性,特别是我国法官享有证据裁量权,对于证人作证方式有权依据案件的具体情况做出选择.界定关键证人应以证人证言能否影响法官的内心确信为标准.通过从司法实践中论述我国目前刑事诉讼中证人作证方式的合理性,建议完善相应的配套制度,从而保证法官需要证人出庭作证时,法院具有足够司法资源维持证人出庭作证.     

美国刑事证人资格制度的借鉴

刑事证人资格制度是保障刑事诉讼活动顺利进行,确保认定案件事实,适用法律法规准确性的基础与核心.证人资格是证人能够作证的最低要求,是对证人能否真正进入诉讼程序的事前鉴定.解决好证人资格问题对于提高诉讼效率,维信证言的证明效力,构建更具人性化的作证方式有着至关重要的意义.目前我国模糊抽象,甚至是空白的刑事证人资格立法规制直接导致了司法实践中由于缺乏统一明确的践行标准而造成了一系列混乱.     

初探污点证人豁免制度

刑事证人是刑事诉讼活动的重要参加者,但司法实践中,对于一些重大,疑难、复杂的案件,取证难和证人拒证已成为困扰司法工作的一大难题。因此,有必要在我国建立科学合理的污点证人制度,亦即作证豁免制度,提高庭审方式效能的发挥。     

污点证人作证豁免制度研究

近几年污点证人作证豁免制度引起了国内学者的关注,污点证人作证豁免制度是给予污点证人一定的豁免权,进而获得污点证人的证言或着是他们提供相关证据,来发现案件事实,达到“案件事实清楚,证据确凿”的目的,这有利于有效的打击重大犯罪,提高司法效率,维护司法公正.污点证人作证豁免制度虽然在我国并未明文规定,但在我国的法律法规中体现出了该原则的内在精神.在我国建立污点证人作证豁免制度是一个曲折漫长的过程,除了考虑其具体的适用条件外,还要设置相应的制度保障,这还需要司法机关和社会各界的共同努力.     

浅议证人作证制度

刑事诉讼活动中,证人证言对于查明案件事实、区分责任有着至关重要的作用。但是,在司法实践中普遍存在的证人出庭作证少、出庭率低等问题,严重影响了案件事实的查明和法院审判的公信力。下文将从证人作证制度的缺陷为切入口,提出相关解决构想,以期对该制度的完善有所增益。     

刑事出庭证人保护制度研究——以修订后的《刑事诉讼法》为视角

2013年1月1日起修订后的《刑事诉讼法》正式实施,其中对证人出庭作证作出了一定修改,增加了对特定案件的证人应当采取特别保护措施的规定,这些制度的出台对解决证人"出庭难"问题,强化程序正义,保障实体正义,从而实现新刑诉法确定的"尊重和保障人权"等的立法宗旨无疑有着积极的意义,但是新修改的刑诉法能否一劳永逸的彻底解决证人出庭难的问题并实现刑诉法确定的证人作证的目标?显然是不现实的,本文认为,解决这一问题,不仅需要立法上的跟进,而且需要各项相关配套制度和措施的完善。结合修订后的《刑事诉讼法》及司法实践对我国刑事诉讼中出庭证人的保护制度进行研讨,结合中国司法实务的现状,尝试建构一套符合中国国情的刑事出庭证人保护制度,夯实和健全我国刑事诉讼法律体系,使刑事诉讼法的法律意义和社会意义得到充分的发挥。     

浅析污点证人作证豁免制度的适用原则

证人证言是刑事诉讼中运用最普遍、最复杂的证据种类之一,它有利于尽快查明案件事实,提高诉讼效率。在西方国家,污点证人作证豁免制度已经发展为一项比较完善的刑事司法制度,但在我国仍处于探索阶段。本文从案例出发,引出了我国司法机关在审判实践中对西方国家污点证人作证豁免制度的借鉴与应用,并由此讨论了在我国确立污点证人作证豁免制度应当遵循的原则。     

刑事证人不出庭作证的立法原因与对策分析

证人出庭作证直接影响到案件事实的查明，是公正司法的重要内容。我国一直沿用的刑事证人作证制度在设置上存在诸多缺陷特别是立法方面的不完善导致了刑事诉讼中证人出庭率低，直接影响了刑事案件的公正审判。本文主要从立法层面分析刑事证人不出庭作证的原因并相应提出几点对策。     

刑事见证及其法律效力研究——诉讼证明中一个被忽视的问题

刑事见证一直被当作一个技术性问题而为我国诉讼法学界所忽视,其所蕴涵的监督制约价值和诉讼证明功能尚未被人们充分认识。我国现有的刑事见证规范不但内容粗疏,而且见证与否对相关的侦查行为及由此所取得的证据材料不产生任何法律效力,从而导致权力滥用和制度变形,这不但与程序正义相背离,而且妨害实体真实的发现。对公权力过分信任的政治哲学、重实体、轻程序的法律文化以及偏重于惩罚犯罪的诉讼目的等,都影响了制度的精细化设计及其应然功能的发挥。无论是顺应证明模式转型的发展趋势还是基于程序法定原则的内在要求,抑或是保障证据证明力及侦查程序正当性的要求,均需要我们重新审视刑事见证问题。只有把见证人见证作为一项独立的诉讼行为予以制度完善并赋予其一定的法律效力,刑事见证才能实现从技术到制度的转变。     

刑事见证及其法律效力研究——诉讼证明中一个被忽视的问题

刑事见证一直被当作一个技术性问题而为我国诉讼法学界所忽视,其所蕴涵的监督制约价值和诉讼证明功能尚未被人们充分认识。我国现有的刑事见证规范不但内容粗疏,而且见证与否对相关的侦查行为及由此所取得的证据材料不产生任何法律效力,从而导致权力滥用和制度变形,这不但与程序正义相背离,而且妨害实体真实的发现。对公权力过分信任的政治哲学、＂重实体、轻程序＂的法律文化以及偏重于惩罚犯罪的诉讼目的等,都影响了制度的精细化设计及其应然功能的发挥。无论是顺应证明模式转型的发展趋势还是基于程序法定原则的内在要求,抑或是保障证据证明力及侦查程序正当性的要求,均需要我们重新审视刑事见证问题。只有把见证人见证作为一项独立的诉讼行为予以制度完善并赋予其一定的法律效力,刑事见证才能实现从技术到制度的转变。     

警察作证制度的理论推演与实证分析

警察作证是推进证人出庭作证制度完善的重要一环。证人的党派性不应成为证人能力限制的理由 ;警察作证的公务性有利于保障其证言的客观性。警察作证不仅有利于案件真实的发现和实体法律的正确适用 ,而且有利于激发刑事诉讼各方参与者的主动性 ,彰显程序自身的公正性 ,还可有力地约束警察的非法取证行为。警察作证的公务性、事后性、倾向性是警察证人与普通证人的区别所在     

Towards Good Practice in Juvenile Justice Policy in the Commonwealth

Any witness who is not able to testify due to lack of support or protection is a loss to the proper functioning of a criminal justice system. In this context it is generally accepted that creating a climate for witnesses to testify truthfully and without fear of reprisals is essential to fulfilling the goals of truth and justice. Accordingly, addressing the issues of witness protection and support is a central aspect of a well-functioning criminal justice system; one that contributes not only to the rule of law through more effective investigations and trials, but also ensures that witnesses are treated with the recognition and care they deserve for their contribution to finding the truth. The principle that victims in the criminal justice system must be treated with courtesy, compassion and respect for their personal dignity entails a responsibility on the part of national authorities to realise this basic principle through the development of appropriate mechanisms designed to provide assistance to the victims. However, building effective national victims/witness support and protection is challenging for any state, and especially so for small Commonwealth jurisdictions due to capacity and other constraints. The Commonwealth seeks to provide technical assistance and capacity building to support its members in promoting the rule of law and has developed and disseminated a best practice guide for the protection of victims and witnesses in the criminal justice system. This article seeks to highlight the valuable findings of the Commonwealth guide and to provide guidance to policy-makers, legislators, police, prosecutors and other stakeholders in criminal justice practice.     

证人保护与被告人权利保障

刑事诉讼法修正案草案规定了更加完善的证人保护制度,但证人保护与被告人知悉权、对质权可能发生冲突,各国为此采取了不同的措施予以平衡,包括限制披露证人身份信息和采用视频技术或设置屏障的方式出庭作证等。刑事诉讼法修正案草案有必要在平衡证人保护与被告人权利保障的基础上完善证人保护制度。     

How to improve china’s witness protection system: an evaluation on protection of witness in the amendment to the criminal procedure law of china

If the personal and property security of witnesses themselves and their family members could not be protected effectively, witnesses may be reluctant to testify, to present in court, or to give truthful testimony. However, the witness protection system provided by China’s legislation is porous, and the implementation of the current witness protection system in practice is not satisfactory, which causes the serious consequence that a witness is unwilling to testify or does not dare to be present in court. An important measure should be adopted to improve the witness protection system in providing practical and comprehensive protection for witnesses in China. The provisions on the protection of witnesses in the drafted amendment to the Criminal Procedure Law of the People’s Republic of China is more advanced than the current law, but still too simple and not enough, which cannot change the weak situation of protection of witnesses, and are needed to be strengthened in judicial interpretations after the drafted amendment is passed. Perfection of China’s witness protection system is necessary in practice, which is still dependent on the reform of the judicial system and the working mechanism in China even if the drafted amendment was passed afterwards. China shall apply the provisions in the UN Convention against Transnational Organized Crime and the UN Convention against Corruption Convention as a guide and absorb other countries’ and regions’ experience to improve its witness protection system, but the basic point is that it should be based on China’s realities, and localize the specific systems.     

从“审被告”到“审证人”?--诉讼制度改革背景下刑事庭审模式转型刍议

以“审被告”为主要特色的我国传统刑事庭审模式已经不能适应时代要求,为此应当构建一种以“审证人”为主要内容和表征的刑事庭审模式。我国新颁布的刑事诉讼法在要求和强制证人出庭方面的进步,体现了“审被告”模式向“审证人”模式转变的思路。而当下我国正在推行的变“以侦查为中心”为“以审判为中心”的诉讼制度改革,为庭审模式的转变提供了新的动力和契机。今后的刑事庭审模式改革,应在坚持已有进展的基础上,继续强化证人出庭力度,完善严格证明规则,同时赋予被告人沉默权,逐渐淡化“审被告”模式色彩,实现“审被告”模式向“审证人”模式的彻底转变。     

人权保护视野下的证人隐名制度

在刑事诉讼程序中授予某些证人隐名,是国际法庭和西方国家普遍的做法。证人隐名是投入资源最少,往往也是最为有效的保护证人安全与隐私利益的举措,是建立证人出庭制度的重要一环。允许证人在作证时不披露身份,可能会影响被追诉人质证权的行使,损害被追诉人接受公正审判的权利。为此,国际社会与各国设立的证人隐名制度,通常都设计了较为详细的证据规则与程序保障机制,以实现被追诉人与证人之间的利益平衡。了解证人隐名制度的运行状况与其中蕴含的价值选择,有助于我国证人出庭制度乃至庭审制度的借鉴与改革。     

证人出庭制度研究——从完善刑事诉讼的视角谈起

证人证言作为证据中的一种,对于查清案件事实十分的重要.但是在目前的诉讼中尤其是刑事诉讼中,证人证言认定案件事实中起着巨大的作用.但是证人出庭率却十分低,从各地的统计数字来看,证人出庭率普遍不足5%.甚至在一些案件中,证言起着关键性作用,但是作为陈述证言的证人却拒不出庭,其实就意味着证据没有经过质证.所以,在运用这种证据的时候,应该十分谨慎.要求证人出庭接受审查等问题已经迫在眉睫.试从刑事诉讼人手,分析解决证人在诉讼中出庭的问题.     

Proofing the Ban on `Witness Proofing’: Did the ICC Get it Right?

This paper focuses on the reasons for disaccord between the ICC and the more seasoned international criminal tribunals on the issue of allowing substantive preparation of witnesses for testifying in court. The rationales behind the opposing decisions and the ensuing debate on the legitimacy and utility of witness proofing continue to be overshadowed by competition between the ?adversarial’ and the ?inquisitorial’ ideologies unfolding in the guise of policy rhetoric. The ban on witness proofing imposed by both Pre-Trial Chamber I and Trial Chamber I of the ICC is based on a stringent application of Article 21 and the evidentiary regime in which the Court's discretion to elect the applicable rules of evidence is more circumscribed than under Rule 89 (B) of its counterparts. Although the ICC trial scheme is rather obscure, attempts to read the possibility of witness proofing into it may well reveal that the practice would be an extraneous element in the ICC procedural system characterized by a different configuration of the truth-finding mandate that eschews the concept of partisan ownership of witnesses. The antipodal judicial stances on witness preparation stem from the substantial dissimilarities between the two models of international criminal procedure, and each of them may be defended both legally and in policy terms. While there is little chance of attenuating the fragmentation of international criminal practice in this area, the ICC’s dissent may have had positive systemic effects insofar as it emphasizes the independent value of witness familiarization and the need for enhanced judicial control over witness contact.