试论我国死刑案件的证明标准

与国外刑事证明标准相比，我国死刑案件的证明标准“案件事实清楚、证据确实充分”存在过于理想化的“客观真实”，缺乏操作性等弊端。需要对我国死刑案件的证明标准进行重构：即区分定罪程序和量刑程序，对定罪程序适用“排除合理怀疑”的证明标准；在量刑程序中对于控方主张判处死刑的情形应适用“排除一切怀疑”的证明标准。     

论死刑案件证明标准之完善——新《刑事诉讼法》实施问题思考

文章论述了死刑案件的定罪和量刑的证明标准与普通刑事案件的异同,认为增加死刑案件的证据数量和种类的办法并不能提高死刑案件的证明标准,提出通过程序设置,如增加死刑案件合议庭的人数和对死刑案件进行审查的阶段可以达到提高死刑案件证明标准的效果.文章还认为死刑案件的证明应当摒弃法定证据的残余,采用严格遵守法律正当程序的途径提高死刑案件的质量.文章论证了死刑案件中不利于被告人和有利于被告人两种情况的证明应适用不同的证明标准,定罪和判处死刑的证明标准应当采取最高标准,而有利于被告人的情节的证明标准可以采用优势证据标准或存在合理怀疑的标准.文章分析了“证据确实、充分”和“排除合理怀疑”的内涵,指出死刑案件的证明标准不仅体现在对证据是否确实、充分等实体方面的要求,还应当包括符合正当程序的要求.     

分而治之:一种完善死刑案件证明标准的思路

一、死刑案件的证明标准:一个引人关注的话题美国哥伦比亚大学学者发布的研究报告声称美国的死刑误判率达到了令人震惊的68％,并提出将死刑案件的证明标准由排除合理怀疑的证明标准提高到排除一切怀疑的证明标准。在我国,提高死刑案件的证明标准亦得到了学者的支持。有学者认为“一般案件有罪判决的证明     

忻元龙绑架案:死刑案件的证据认定——高检指导性案例的个案研究

忻元龙绑架案是最高人民检察院颁布的一个指导性案例,该案例涉及死刑案件的证据认定问题。本文在忻元龙绑架案的官方文本的基础上,对死刑案件的证明标准和证据判断问题进行了研究。我国刑事诉讼法规定的证明标准是"证据确实、充分",同时又把"排除合理怀疑"作为考察内容之一。以上两者是总的证明标准和具体的证明规则之间的关系,在司法实践中是否排除合理怀疑是确定证据是否确实、充分的重要指数。死刑案件的证明标准是否应当高于普通案件,对此在法律上并无规定,而在理论上则存在争议。从死刑的严厉性以及死刑错判难纠的性质考虑,还是应当对死刑案件提出更为严格的证明标准。对于在司法实践中较为普遍的留有余地的死缓判决,只有在定罪证据确实、充分,但判处死刑的量刑证据不能排除合理怀疑的情况下,才具有正当性。如果定罪证据没有达到确实、充分的程度,则不应当判处留有余地的死缓。否则,就会造成死刑的冤假错案。忻元龙绑架案虽然存在个别疑点,但这些疑点是可以排除的,二审法院据此适用留有余地的死缓判决并不妥当。但是,在司法实践中更应当避免的是定罪证据没有达到确实、充分情况下留有余地的死缓判决。     

我国死刑案件证明标准的反思

严格死刑案件证明标准,把死刑案件办成“铁案”,随着近年来中国司法高层和政治决策层的不断强调,已日益为司法界所认同。要切实发挥证明标准对死刑适用的控制作用,司法者应根据“案件事实清楚、证据确实充分”这一有罪判决证明标准的精神实质,坚持将“排除合理怀疑”作为死刑判决的标准,在证据审查和证据采信环节严格把关,使证明标准真正成为防止错杀和减少死刑适用的一道防护堤。     

“排除合理怀疑”与我国刑事诉讼证明标准的完善

刑事证明标准是学界和实务界历来研究的重点,但在司法实践中仍存在诸多问题。新刑事诉讼法明确规定了"排除合理怀疑"证明标准,具有十分重要的价值功能。由于其存在适用标准不够具体等问题,因此准确界定"排除合理怀疑"的内涵、提高死刑案件的证明标准等是较为可行与有效的。     

死刑案件中证据审查与采信的反思

刑事诉讼中应确立“法律真实”的证明标准,也就是通过证据来证明犯罪构成的事实和量刑轻重的事实,并达到排除合理怀疑的程度。为此,应确立证人、被害人、鉴定人出庭作证规则和排除传闻证据规则,并建立完善的非法证据排除规则。这些制度的确立和完善,对于防止死刑案件中的误判误杀,坚持“少杀慎杀”死刑政策,具有重要的意义。     

死刑案件证明标准检讨——以高攀死刑案为范例

我国刑事诉讼的证明标准是“犯罪事实清楚,证据确实、充分”,没有对死刑案件和非死刑案件的证明标准加以区分,因而没有反映出对死刑案件应有的慎重,且这一证明标准是仅就控方单方面的证明而言的,没有反映出辩方举证和辩解在证明活动中的地位和影响。非死刑案件的证明标准应为“排除合理怀疑”,死刑案件的证明标准应为“确定无疑”。     

提高死刑案件证明标准 一个似是而非的命题

@@ 死刑案件证明标准在我国从未有过独立的表现形式,而是和一般刑事案件共享着同一个证明标准-"案件事实清楚,证据确实充分".但是,这种一元化的证明标准却因为一系列死刑案件的误判而面临着司法实践的巨大挑战.云南杜培武案、河北陈国清案、辽宁李化伟案等一系列死刑误判案件的发生促使人们开始反思死刑案件的证明标准问题,并思考突破困局的可能途径.     

我国刑事证明标准的理解与适用

刑事证明标准是指认定犯罪嫌疑人、被告人犯罪所要达到的程度。我国新刑事诉讼法对"证据确实、充分"的定罪证明标准作了细化,引入了英美法系国家"排除合理怀疑"的表述,体现出刑事证明标准由客观向主客观相结合的发展动向。中国语境下的"排除合理怀疑"是从主观方面为"证据确实、充分"提供判断依据,使之更具可操作性。在司法实践中正确适用刑事证明标准,应当注意:"排除合理怀疑"不应孤立适用,而是与其他条件紧密联系形成统一整体;严格适用刑事证明标准,不得对案件事实的认定降低要求;坚持疑罪从无原则,摒弃"留有余地"的判决方式,对事实不清、证据不足,没有达到证明标准而难以决断的案件,应依法作出证据不足、指控的犯罪不能成立的无罪判决。     

The Difference between Blackstone-Like Error Ratios and Probabilistic Standards of Proof

Statements regarding the ratio of erroneous acquittals to erroneous convictions are often thought to have clear implications for standards of proof. For example, Blackstone's comment that "it is better that ten guilty persons escape, than that one innocent suffer' is believed by many to imply a precise numerical value for proof beyond a reasonable doubt. Specifically, jurors should vote to convict only if they are at least 91 % certain of the defendant's guilt. Unfortunately, the belief that this decision threshold will lead to the desired ratio of judicial errors is simply incorrect. Depending on (a) the accuracy with which juries discriminate between truly innocent and truly guilty defendants and (b) the proportion of defendants who are truly guilty, this probabilistic standard of proof may lead to any ratio of judicial errors, including those favoring conviction of the innocent over acquittal of the guilty. Although standards of proof cannot be equated with error ratios in a simple manner, the problem lies not with probabilistic decision thresholds but with the desire to achieve a certain error ratio.     

Contractualism and the Death Penalty

It is a truism that there are erroneous convictions in criminal trials. Recent legal findings show that 3.3% to 5% of all convictions in capital rape-murder cases in the U.S. in the 1980s were erroneous convictions. Given this fact, what normative conclusions can be drawn? First, the article argues that a moderately revised version of Scanlon’s contractualism offers an attractive moral vision that is different from utilitarianism or other consequentialist theories, or from purely deontological theories. It then brings this version of Scanlonian contractualism to bear on the question of whether the death penalty, life imprisonment, long sentences, or shorter sentences can be justified, given that there is a non-negligible rate of erroneous conviction. Contractualism holds that a permissible act must be justifiable to everyone affected by it. Yet, given the non-negligible rate of erroneous conviction, it is unjustifiable to mete out the death penalty, because such a punishment is not justifiable to innocent murder convicts. It is further argued that life imprisonment will probably not be justified (unless lowering the sentence to a long sentence will drastically increase the murder rate). However, whether this line of argument could be further extended would depend on the impact of lowering sentences on communal security.     

Death penalty beliefs and jurors' responses to aggravating and mitigating circumstances in capital trials

Two studies explored the relationship between attitudes toward the death penalty and support for or rejection of aggravating and mitigating circumstances in a capital trial. Jurors serving on jury duty voluntarily completed questionnaires in the jury lounge. In Study 1, jurors strongly opposed to the death penalty were significantly more receptive to mitigating circumstances than were the remaining jurors. In Study 2, jurors who would have been excluded for their opposition to the death penalty under theWitherspoon standard were significantly less receptive to aggravating circumstances than were the other jurors. It is suggested that the present system of death qualification in capital cases results in biases against the interest of the defendant at all stages of the trial process—jury selection, determination of guilt, and sentencing.     

Community Risk Management of High-Risk Sex Offenders in Canada: Findings From a Quasi-Experimental Study

Although considerable controversy surrounds capital punishment, there is no disagreement about the injustice of executing innocent persons. While critics of the death penalty have cited the risk of executing the innocent as a reason for its abolition, adherents have dismissed the risk of error as negligible, if not inevitable, and insufficient reason to halt capital punishment. Still others have proposed or enacted reforms designed to minimize the risk of erroneous capital convictions and sentences and, hence, allow executions to go forward in deserving cases in which doubts about guilt have largely been eradicated. In this article, we examine the principled tensions that accompany attempts simultaneously to safeguard the innocent from execution while promoting the objectives of capital punishment. We focus, in particular, on reforms recently incorporated into Maryland’s death penalty law. We suggest that the existing tensions between protecting the innocent from execution and promoting the objectives of capital punishment are so pronounced that attempted reconciliation of the competing interests is difficult to defend, either in principle or in practice.     

Discrimination and Instructional Comprehension: Guided Discretion,Racial Bias,and the Death Penalty

This study links two previously unrelated lines of research: the lack of comprehension of capital penalty-phase jury instructions and discriminatory death sentencing. Jury-eligible subjects were randomly assigned to view one of four versions of a simulated capital penalty trial in which the race of defendant (Black or White) and the race of victim (Black or White) were varied orthogonally. Dependent measures included a sentencing verdict (life without the possibility of parole or the death penalty), ratings of penalty phase evidence, and a test of instructional comprehension. Results indicated that instructional comprehension was poor overall and that, although Black defendants were treated only slightly more punitively than White defendants in general, discriminatory effects were concentrated among participants whose comprehension was poorest. In addition, the use of penalty phase evidence differed as a function of race of defendant and whether the participant sentenced the defendant to life or death. The study suggest that racially biased and capricious death sentencing may be in part caused or exacerbated by the inability to comprehend penalty phase instructions.     

Forensic DNA evidence and the death penalty in the Philippines

The death penalty remains a contentious issue even though it has been abolished in countries such as Australia, New Zealand, Canada, European Union member nations and some Asian countries such as Cambodia, East Timor and Nepal. Many argue that the irrevocability of the death penalty, in the face of potential erroneous convictions, can never justify its imposition. The Philippines, the first Asian country that abolished the death penalty in 1987, held the record for the most number of mandatory death offenses (30 offenses) and death eligible offenses (22 offenses) after it was re-imposed in 1994. Majority of death penalty convictions were decided based on testimonial evidence. While such cases undergo automatic review by the Supreme Court, the appellate process in the Philippines is not structured to accept post-conviction evidence, including DNA evidence.Because of the compelling nature of post-conviction DNA evidence in overturning death penalty convictions in the United States, different groups advocated its use in the Philippines. In one such case, People v Reynaldo de Villa, the defendant was charged with raping his 13-year-old niece that supposedly led to birth of a female child, a situation commonly known as ‘criminal paternity’. This paper reports the results of the first post-conviction DNA test using 16 Short Tandem Repeat (STR) DNA markers in a criminal paternity case (People v Reynaldo de Villa) and discusses the implications of these results in the Philippine criminal justice system.     

Life underWainwright v. Witt: Juror dispositions and death qualification

The current standard for determining juror qualification in cases in which the prosecution is seeking the death penalty was formulated by the U.S. Supreme Court in 1985 inWainwright v. Witt. This standard differs importantly from its predecessor, and requires that prospective jurors be dismissed if their views would prevent or substantially impair their ability to perform their functions as jurors. We assessed respondents according to the criteria imposed byWitt. We also measured independently prospective juror's abilities to perform the various specific tasks of a capital juror and their disposition to impose the death penalty automatically upon defendants convicted of murder punishable by death. Data from 148 respondents, selected randomly from juries on previously tried felony cases, indicated that 28.2% of those includable by theWitt standard would automatically impose the death penalty. Considering all respondents who would be erroneously included or excluded, a total of 36% of the sample showed inconsistencies with theWitt criterion. These findings are discussed in terms of jurors' difficulties in anticipating their roles as capital jurors.     

美国死刑案件有罪答辩自愿性探微

在美国,享有不被强迫自证其罪的权利是保障被告人认罪自愿性的基础。在死刑案件中,被告人作有罪答辩时得到了有效而合格的律师帮助、具有与其律师交流的能力、在知晓指控的性质和答辩有罪的后果是被告人自愿认罪的标志,选择陪审团审判而可能被判处死刑并不是强迫被告人认罪的必然因素。     

Due process vs. crime control

Juries that exclude people who are unwilling to impose the death penalty (death-qualified juries) may be biased against capital defendants. To evaluate this possibility we compared the demographic characteristics and attitudes toward the criminal justice system of people who would or would not be excluded by theWitherspoon standard. A random sample of 811 eligible jurors in Alameda County, California were interviewed by telephone. Of the 717 respondents who stated that they could be fair and impartial in deciding on the guilt or innocence of a capital defendant, 17.2% said that they could never vote to impose the death penalty, and thus are excludable underWitherspoon. Significantly greater proportions of blacks than whites and of females than males are eliminated by the process of death qualification. On the attitudinal measures, the death-qualified respondents were consistently more prone to favor the point of view of the prosecution, to mistrust criminal defendants and their counsel, to take a punitive approach toward offenders, and to be more concerned with crime control than with due process. Eleven of the 13 items showed statistically significant differences.