三论被告人承担客观证明责任——应用于刑事辩解和刑事推定的知识论阐释

“被告人的客观证明责任”作为分析工具，可以对被告人的刑事辩解问题和刑事推定问题进行知识论的解释。解释结果分别是，被告人刑事辩解可分为纯粹的权利型和纯粹的义务型两种，认为刑事辩解既具有权利性质又具有义务性质的观点，似是而非；违法阻却事由和责任阻却事由的刑事辩解，是否需要被告人承担客观证明责任，由我国特有的犯罪构成要件理论和刑事诉讼结构来确定；确定刑事推定的合理语义，需要分析我国刑事推定特有的语用环境，刑事推定的语用分析是其语义分析的充分必要条件。应当把刑事推定的转换证明责任规范功能，作为刑事推定规则的主要功能定位．以此确定刑事推定的合理语义。对此有两种理论选择，激进的做法是直接取消刑事推定的概念，因为此概念既无用也有害，可以用“被告人的客观证明责任”概念来代替有关刑事推定问题的分析：温和的做法是改变学界多数学者遵循的从“语义”到“语用”的研究路径，应反其道而行之，由“语用”到“语义”来进行研究．这是克服学界在刑事推定问题上众说纷纭、确定刑事推定合理语义的适当办法。作为分析工具的“被告人的客观证明责任”，有着自身的理论适用范围以及相应的理论分析局限。

The Third Review on the Objective Burden of Proof to the Accused-A Methodological Explanation to Criminal Defense and Presumption

A possible methodological explanation to the Criminal Defense by the analytical tool of OBJECTIVE BURDEN OF PROOF TO THE ACCUSED is that there are two types of criminal defenses which are named by pure right and pure responsibility and a vague opinion that the merit of defense is either of right or of responsibility is confirmed. The necessity of imposing objective burden of proof on the accused for legality-cut and responsibility-cut facts is dependable of the theory of specific criminal law and of specific structure of criminal procedure in our country. The same method is applicable to the research of presumption which insists that a reasonable theoretical choice, compared with a radical one, is a semantic analysis of the definition of criminal presumption on the basis of pragmatic analysis according to the function of transferring the burden of proof, which is a key to solve the theoretical problem of multiple concepts about presumption. There is a limitation and a suitable scope of this analytical theory related to objective burden of proof.