无罪推定原则的意义解读——一种诉讼法哲学分析

无罪推定已经成为现代国家的一项刑事诉讼法原则乃至宪法原则。无罪推定在各国立法例中虽然有肯定式和否定式两种表述方式 ,但其基本内涵却是相同的 ,即 :任何人在没有充分证据证明并由法院判决确定有罪之前 ,应作为无罪公民对待。作为一种关于正义的规范性命题 ,无罪推定原则具有内在的基本特征和诉讼程序规则 ,具有深厚的社会哲学基础和重要的政治法律意义。在建设社会主义法治国家进程中 ,无罪推定原则的进一步发展与完善 ,成为当代中国刑事诉讼法制现代化的迫切需要和时代课题。     

Assuming that the Defendant Is Not Guilty: The Presumption of Innocence in the German System of Criminal Justice

The presumption of innocence is not a presumption but an assumption or legal fiction. It requires agents of the state to treat a suspect or defendant in the criminal process as if he were in fact innocent. The presumption of innocence has a limited field of application. It applies only to agents of the state, and only during the criminal process. The presumption of innocence as such does not determine the amount of evidence necessary to find a defendant guilty. In spite of these limits, the presumption of innocence protects suspects and defendants from specific dangers inherent in the criminal process. German procedure law is used to show these areas.     

The Ideal of the Presumption of Innocence

This article clarifies and further defends the view that the right to be presumed innocent until proven guilty, protected by Article 6(2) of the European Convention of Human Rights has implications for the substantive law. It is shown that a ‘purely procedural’ conception of the presumption of innocence has absurd implications for the nature of the right. Objections to the moderate substantive view defended are considered, including the acceptability of male prohibits offences, the difficulty of ascertaining intentions of legislatures and the proper role of prosecutorial discretion.     

Who is Presumed Innocent of What by Whom?

The article analyses the components of the presumption of innocence and tries to clarify some of the conceptual and logical difficulties surrounding the notion of ‘innocence’ and the structure of legal presumptions. It is argued that all conceivable literal interpretations of the maxim make little or no sense, and that the presumptions form is, as such, devoid of original content: presumptions do not explain nor justify anything but are auxiliary norms which refer to the legal consequences spelled out in other norms. Therefore, the presumption of innocence can be used to express any kind of requirement and standard for the criminal process and the treatment of suspect citizens only in a tautological, albeit rhetorically forceful, way. This instrumental use of the presumption of innocence is theoretically without merit but can be practically beneficial as long as there is no developed system of fundamental rights and protections of individual freedoms in a given legal order. Finally, a functional understanding of the presumption of innocence is proposed which gives it an original, though limited field of application as a guarantee of the procedure itself, in particular of the openness of the outcome.     

无罪推定原则的确立与口供制度的完善

无罪推定是被追诉者的一项基本权利,也是被追诉者各项诉讼权利的基础。在刑事诉讼中将无罪推定确立为指导刑事诉讼活动的基本准则,就是无罪推定原则。我国应当在刑事诉讼中彻底确立无罪推定原则。无罪推定及其引申的主要内容应当分为三个层次:证明责任、被追诉者的权利和对被追诉者的权利的保障。由于无罪推定假定被追诉者无罪,对控诉的举证责任应由控方承担,被追诉者不承担无罪的举证责任,所以,被追诉者就没有理由配合控方提供自己犯罪的证据,包括口供。我国刑事诉讼法关于"犯罪嫌疑人对侦查人员的提问,应当如实回答"的规定,违背了无罪推定关于被追诉者不应当承担举证或证明责任的基本精神,使得被追诉者负有帮助侦控方履行举证和证明的义务。这一规定实质上表明我国刑诉法要求被追诉者承担举证或证明责任。因此,从无罪推定的这一层面上说"应当如实回答"是不合理的,应当予以取消。     

通过正当的法律程序控制死刑——从公正审判权的国际标准谈我国死刑司法程序的完善

公正审判权的国际标准大体上包括平等的法律保护权、无罪推定的权利、侦查阶段的人权、审判阶段的人权、判决后的救济权、不受重复追究的权利和在适用刑法方面的权利七个方面。我国法律规定了着眼于限制死刑适用的特别司法程序,但对照国际标准,这一程序在立法和实施两个方面均存在明显的问题,并由此产生了相当严重的危害后果。为了保证死刑案件的公正审判,严防错杀无辜,争取在合理可接受的限度内平稳地减少死刑的数量,立法人员和司法人员应当坚决摒弃长期以来主导刑事司法全过程的专政型司法观念,尽快树立公正型司法观念;立法机关和司法机关应当参照公正审判权的国际标准全面完善我国死刑案件的侦查程序、一审程序、二审程序、死刑复核程序和审判监督程序。     

无罪推定原则在证据法中的体现

无罪推定是基于人生来无罪、也无犯罪基因这一常态而作出的一种假定。刑事诉讼程序是以证据为依据的动态逻辑证明过程并以证据为核心构件,因而,无罪推定原则在证据法中也具有重要意义。它在证据法中主要体现为以下具体规则：证据裁判主义、非法证据材料排除规则、无罪推定原则支配下的刑事诉讼证明与无罪推定原则下的证明责任。     

面对死刑的人的诉讼权利的保障

面对死刑的人,在检察机关提起公诉前后分别称为“犯罪嫌疑人”和“被告人”。合法、充分保障面对死刑的人的诉讼权利,是有效限制死刑适用的重要方面。我国《刑事诉讼法》对面对死刑的人的诉讼权利保障规定得较为系统,在有些方面已达到国际标准,但在另一些方面还存在差距。为了保障面对死刑的人的人权,需进一步从获知权、辩护权、无罪推定、沉默权等方面加以完善。     

Unwitting subjects of surveillance and the presumption of innocence

Mass surveillance programmes introduced by several EU Member States influence the protection that citizens enjoy on the basis of fundamental rights and freedoms. This paper focuses on the impact that these programmes have on the legal principle of presumption of innocence. The authors argue that even in those circumstances where the principle does not immediately apply because mass surveillance is undertaken before any criminal charge is issued, the collection of information and potential evidence limits the guarantees offered by the principle during the stages of a legal process. It is argued that mass surveillance programmes undermine the role of the principle of presumption of innocence at the stages of a criminal process and compromise, therefore, the very effectiveness of the legal process.     

Criminal and Procedural Fairness: Some Challenges to the Presumption of Innocence

The presumption of innocence (POI) requires all judges, juries, and other officials in a trial, to presume and treat any accused of criminal wrongdoing as innocent, until he or she is proven guilty. Although a POI lacks an authoritative definition, this overarching principle of procedural fairness is so robust and vital for the exercise of legal power in matters of criminal law that one rarely finds anyone questioning its standing. In this article I examine the rationale behind the POI from a different perspective. The basic assumption is that this procedural standard captures the tenor of a broader principle which seeks to ensure fairness in criminal proceedings as well as in criminal law doctrine. I argue that honouring a principle of fairness is not exclusively a matter of criminal procedural law but also something that is deeply rooted in other areas of criminal law doctrine. Hence: not maintaining a principle of fairness in criminal law doctrine could lead to the POI being compromised or even undermined. In the article, I draw attention to three areas in which I believe that criminal law policies threaten a principle of fairness: criminalising remote harm, doctrine of ignorance of law and inversed presumptions of guilt. My conclusion is that some solutions to so called doctrinal problems in criminal law, are questionable and their practical consequences (on a general level) are, at least partially, equal to treating an individual (in a trial) as guilty for something for which he or she ought not to be accountable. Hence: gaining the support of a POI could thus work as principle for keeping the use of criminal law moderate and in accordance with a principle of fairness.     

The Prosecutor and the Presumption of Innocence

In what ways is the conduct of prosecutors constrained by the presumption of innocence? To address this question, I first develop an account of the presumption in the trial context, according to which it is a vital element in a moral assurance procedure for the justified infliction of legal punishment. Jurors must presume the factual innocence of defendants at the outset of trials and then be convinced beyond a reasonable doubt by the government’s evidence before they convict defendants. Prosecutors’ responsibilities to promote the integrity of this moral assurance procedure are then divided into pre-trial, during-trial, and post-trial phases. Since most charge adjudication is effected through plea bargaining, the ways in which plea procedures must be modified to conform to this moral assurance procedure, and thus honor the presumption of innocence, are also discussed.     

The Presumption of Punishment

The presumption of innocence undergirds the American criminal justice system. It is so fundamental that it is derived from the concepts of due process and the importance of a fair trial. An informed, historical understanding of the interaction between the presumption of innocence and key tenets of due process can help clarify the meaning and application of the presumption of innocence in the modern day. Due process, as developed throughout English and US. Colonial history leading up to the formation of the US. Constitution, has two important implications. First, due process provides a general guarantee of liberty against punishment or imprisonment without a fair trial. Second, due process requires that a jury, as opposed to a judge, determine the factual guilt of a defendant at trial. These two key tenets were historically fundamental to due process and should guide how the presumption of innocence impacts various stages of trial, including pretrial detention decisions and sentencing. Returning to a historical understanding of due process requires that judges not determine facts or punish individuals before a trial has occurred.     

论刑事推定的合宪性审查

刑事推定不仅涉及实体法上犯罪构成要件的设置和程序法上证明责任的分配与承担,还涉及司法权力的重新配置,对其合宪性进行审查是亟待引起重视的一个新问题。推定的合宪性审查标准是多元的。无罪推定是现代刑事法的一项基本原则,是被告人应该享有的重要的宪法性权利,探讨推定的合宪性审查,必须审视推定与无罪推定之间的关系。     

论刑事被告人宪法权利的保障——从无罪推定角度所做的分析

无罪推定原则是刑事犯罪嫌疑人、被告人宪法基本权利保障的原则之一。随着我国社会主义民主与法治的发展,从立法与司法的双重视角贯彻和推行无罪推定原则,不仅有利于保障犯罪嫌疑人的人权,而且有利于推动我国的法治进程。我国应在《宪法》中明文规定无罪推定原则,立法保障犯罪嫌疑人的沉默权,进一步明确与施行非法证据排除制度。     

Limitations on the ability to negotiate justice: attorney perspectives on guilt,innocence, and legal advice in the current plea system

In the American criminal justice system the vast majority of criminal convictions occur as the result of guilty pleas, often made as a result of plea bargains, rather than jury trials. The incentives offered in exchange for guilty pleas mean that both innocent and guilty defendants plead guilty. We investigate the role of attorneys in this context, through interviews with criminal defense attorneys. We examine defense attorney perspectives on the extent to which innocent defendants are (and should be) pleading guilty in the current legal framework and investigate their views of their own role in this complex system. We also use a hypothetical case to probe the ways in which defense attorneys consider guilt or innocence when providing advice on pleas. Results indicate that attorney advice is influenced by guilt or innocence, but also that attorneys are limited in the extent to which they can negotiate justice for their clients in a system in which uncertainty and large discrepancies between outcomes of guilty pleas and conviction at trial can make it a sensible option to plead guilty even when innocent. Results also suggest conflicting opinions over the role of the attorney in the plea-bargaining process.     

The penology of racial innocence: the erasure of racism in the study and practice of punishment

In post–civil rights America, the ascendance of “law-and-order” politics and “postracial” ideology have given rise to what we call the penology of racial innocence. The penology of racial innocence is a framework for assessing the role of race in penal policies and institutions, one that begins with the presumption that criminal justice is innocent of racial power until proven otherwise. Countervailing sociolegal changes render this framework particularly problematic. On the one hand, the definition of racism has contracted in antidiscrimination law and in many social scientific studies of criminal justice, so that racism is defined narrowly as intentional and causally discrete harm. On the other hand, criminal justice institutions have expanded to affect historically unprecedented numbers of people of color, with penal policies broadening in ways that render the identification of racial intent and causation especially difficult. Analyses employing the penology of racial innocence examine the ever-expanding criminal justice system with limited definitions of racism, ultimately contributing to the erasure of racial power. Both racism and criminal justice operate in systemic and serpentine ways; our conceptual tools and methods, therefore, need to be equally systemic and capacious.     

证明困难视阈下的事实认定与刑事推定

从法律效果上看,刑事推定实际具有实体与程序的双重功能。以“主观罪责型”推定与“证明责任型”推定为例,前者改变了构成要件中主观罪责的证明方式,后者则在此基础上,将有限的举证责任转由被告人承担,使其成为刑事推定的不利方。为在不违背罪刑法定原则与无罪推定原则的前提下,充分实现刑事推定所预想的制度目标,不但需要对其基础事实之内容予以严格限定,突出其法定性与可证明性,而且需要明确推定事实与裁判事实之间的合理界分,强调事实认定者的心证对推定结果的可能影响,并在适用前提上,仅将刑事推定作为证明困难处境下的末位选择加以使用,在作用范围方面可将其适当扩大至定罪外的部分量刑情节。在立法选择上,考虑到刑事诉讼人权保障的基本立场,刑事立法应当对刑事推定保持最低限度的容忍态度,尽量减少其创设及适用。     

The Presumption of Innocence and its Role in the Criminal Process

Many international instruments proclaim that those who face criminal prosecution ought to be afforded a ‘presumption of innocence’, and the importance and central role of this presumption is recognized by legal systems throughout the world. There is, however, little agreement about its meaning and extent of application. This article considers the purposes of legal presumptions in general and explores various, sometimes contradictory, conceptions of this most famous one. It is equated by many scholars to the requirement that the prosecution prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. As such, it is merely a rule of evidence (albeit an important one), with no application pre- or post-trial. The article advocates adoption of a broader, normative approach, namely that the presumption reflects the relationship which ought to exist between citizen and State when a citizen is suspected of breaching the criminal law. As such, it should be promoted as a practical attitude to be adopted by the key protagonists in the justice system, for the duration of the criminal process.     

论无罪推定原则在防止错案中的作用

频频发生的刑事错案,往往以牺牲生命或自由为代价,引人深思。如何能避免刑事错案？本文认为无罪推定原则的树立对避免刑事错案具有至关重要的意义。无罪推定原则实际上确立了被追诉人在刑事诉讼中的诉讼主体地位,由此,追诉方不得不承担举证责任,而被追诉方却享有一系列防御权利,以权利制约权力,从而达到预防、减少错案的目的。