“只有被告人供述”案件司法证明的谬误与厘清

我国《刑事诉讼法》第55条规定之目的,在于改善司法机关依赖口供定罪的现状,从而避免刑讯逼供等非法取证行为的发生,真正实现保障人权的基本目标。但是实践中不仅存在仅凭口供定罪的情形,还存在通过异化口供形式或者形式化口供补强,以规避第55条约束的现象。异化的口供形式,本质上仍然是“被告人供述”;形式化的口供补强规则,是以“被告人供述”为中心形成虚假印证。考虑到《刑事诉讼法》的根本目标,应当对第55条进行实质解释,既不能通过异化口供来定案,也不能进行形式化口供补强,将口供作为定案的主要依据。换言之,应当不断降低口供在司法证明中的证明力,积极寻找其他客观性证据,并结合排除合理怀疑的证明要求,从而达到我国的刑事证明标准,才是《刑事诉讼法》第55条的合理适用。

Fallacy and Clarification of Judicial Proof in the Case of“Only the Defendant s Confession”

The purpose of Article 55 of the Criminal Procedure Law is to improve the current situation of judicial organs􀆳conviction on confession,so as to avoid the occurrence of illegal collection of evidence such as extorting confessions by torture,and to truly realize the basic requirements of human rights protection.However,in practice,there are not only convictions based on confessions,but also phenomena of evading the fifty⁃fifth treaty by alienating confessions or reinforcing them with formal confessions.The alienated form of confession is still essentially the“confession of the defendant”,while over⁃emphasizing the mutual confirmation between confession and other evidence may result in false confirmation.Formal rules of confession reinforcement cannot reinforce the authenticity of confession.Considering the legislative purpose of the Criminal Procedure Law,Article 55 of the Criminal Procedure Law should be interpreted in substance.Neither the alienated confession nor the confession can be used as the main basis for the final decision.Only by continuously reducing the proof power of confession in the process of judicial proof,actively seeking other objective evidence,combining with the requirement of eliminating reasonable doubt of proof,and meeting the standard of criminal proof in China,can the rights of the defendant be truly guaranteed and the authority of criminal justice be maintained.