刑事证据法的制度转型与研究转向——以非法证据排除规则为线索的分析

20世纪初美国法学界曾针对"非法证据排除规则"发生过激烈论争,证据学家威格莫尔与法律改革家豪尔乃是论争中对立的双方,其论争的历史贡献在于引出了近现代西方证据法(学)发展的两大论题:"证据法应以证明性为中心还是以可采性为中心"与"如何处理证据规则的实现和诉讼程序的构建之间的关系"。确立与构筑非法证据排除规则是我国《刑事诉讼法》再修改的重要环节,当前我国刑事证据法学界的诸多争论与威格莫尔和豪尔当年的论战存在诸多"历史相似性",故有必要进行关联审视。由于我国证据立法以证明性而非可采性为中心,证据规则的实践运行环境不容乐观,理论研究也因为一直受到证据学进路的统摄而不能获得独立。为摆脱困境,我国刑事证据法学界应当以学科建制的探讨为契机,实现中国证据法的制度转型,即构建以可采性规则为中心的证据规则体系,旨在防止误判与价值权衡。同时实现证据法学的研究转向,即实现中国的证据学之法学转型、人权法转型及相对于实体法的独立性转型。

The Institutional Transformation and Theoretical Turn of China's Criminal Evidence Law: From the Perspective of Exclusionary Rule

At the beginning of the 20th century,a violent debate arose over "exclusionary rule" in American legal circles while Evidence scholar John Wigmore and legal reformist Conner Hall stood on the opposite sides of the debate.The historical contribution of their arguments lies in that it results in two significant topics in modern Western evidence law: whether evidence law should center on truth-seeking or admissibility;how should the relationship between application of evidence rules and establishment of criminal procedures be regulated.Introduction of exclusionary rule is an important issue while people intend to re-amend the Criminal Procedural Act of the PRC."Historical similarities" of the controversies among Chinese criminal evidence scholars to the disputes between Wigmore and Hall are too many to be ignorant.Since its legislation stresses truth-seeking rather than admissibility,China is now in a plight while applying its evidence rules.In addition,the backwardness of its studies of evidence also hinders theoretical research from being independent.To solve the dilemma,scholars in criminal evidence field should consider the institutional transformation of China's criminal evidence law,which means to establish a system of evidence rules based on admissibility to prevent misjudgment and to balance values.Meanwhile,it is expected that China's evidence studies will take a theoretical turn,i.e.a turn to jurisprudence,a turn to human rights law,and a turn to a separate evidence law opposite to substantial law.