证据的内涵与依法取证-以行政处罚证据的收集为分析视角

作为法律程序整体所必不可少的一部分，行政程序与司法程序一样，都在证据的作用下发挥其功能。然而，我国研究更多将目光聚焦于诉讼证据，而对行政程序证据缺乏关注。但实际上，行政机关是依法治国的主要执行官，其与公民的关系比其他任何国家机关更为密切，所以规范行政机关的执法行为无疑成为依法治国的重大课题，其中对行政处罚证据的规范尤其如此。从原则上而言，行政处罚证据理应符合证据“三性”，但警察思维与法官思维上的差异使其对证据有其特殊要求，基于公共利益保护的需要，行政处罚证据的关联性、合法性存在减弱和例外情形，因此，对于“毒树之果”以及通过钓鱼执法、秘密调查等方式所得证据并不必然排除，为此，与其让这些实践中早已普遍存在的行为游离于法外，不如通过立法明确规定其范围、程序和命令禁止事项。

The connotation of evidence and collecting evidence by law--discussion on the collection of evidence in administrative penalty

As an integral part of the whole legal proceedings, both administrative procedure and judicial procedure perform their roles based on evidence. However, scholars in China pay more attention to evidence for litigation rather than evidence for administrative procedure. But in fact, the administrative organ is the main executive officer for the rule of law, and has a closer relationship with citizens than any other state organs. Standardization of the law enforcement activities of the administrative organs, activities in administrative penalty in particular, will undoubtedly become a major issue of the rule of law. Generally speaking, evidence in administrative penalty should conform with the three characteristics of common evidence: the relevance, legitimacy and authenticity. However due to the different consideration between the judge and police, evidence for administrative penalty has its own special requirements: weakening the characteristics and there are exceptions to relevance and legitimacy. Therefore, fruits of the poisonous tree and evidence obtained by the way of entrapment and undercover inquiry are not always excluded. It may be better to specify the scope, procedure and injunction matters which is common in practice by legislation instead of doing nothing.