我国疑罪从无的理论省察及规则重述

疑罪是刑事诉讼在司法实践中必然遭遇且无法绕开的实然性难题。刑事诉讼立法抑或刑事司法或显或隐地借助于从无来摆脱其困境。疑罪从无作为一项诉讼原则被我国理论所倚重,理论上不仅将其视为国外司法活动的惯常做法,在叙事上也将其与证据不足相等同,甚至还将其功能扩展到作为根治冤假错案的惟一途径。坚持疑罪从的无国家存在冤假错案的现实,与我国理论对其功能表达形成相当的反差,特别我国司法实践未遵从理论指导的现实样态,又使得人们对理论阐述衍生迷思并陷入困惑。实质上,疑罪从无是一种分配错误的裁判规则,是法官认定事实时存疑且心证无法形成情形下选择配置错误的一种方式,其本身不是减少错案的防范性规范,在证据理论层面不同于证据不足,理论也不宜作为纠正冤案的基本惟一准则。一般而言,对于有罪与无罪均有证据证明而难分伯仲时,疑罪应当从无;对于达到证明标准或者辩方自愿认罪而法官心证仍未形成,且对有罪无法排除合理怀疑的,此种情形下的疑罪也可以从轻。

No Punishment for a Doubtful Crime in China:Theoretical Reflections and the Rule Restatement

Doubtful crimes,which inevitably arise in judicial practice,remain a difficult problem in criminal procedure.Both criminal procedure legislations and criminal justice explicitly or implicitly get out of difficulty by resorting to the procedural rule of"no punishment for a doubtful crime."This procedural rule is highly esteemed by researchers,who view it as a usual practice in overseas judicial practice,insufficiency of evidence in theory,and even a unique way to solve unjust,framed-up and wrong cases.In China,the procedural rule is followed,but in reality unjust,framed-up and wrong cases still appear,as is in striking contrast with the theoretical explanation of its functions,for judicial practice is not willing to comply with the theoretical guidance.In essence,this procedural rule is the judge’s choice when he or she finds facts in case of no inner conviction;it is not a rule used to reduce wrong cases.Theoretically,it equals insufficiency of evidence,and cannot be treated as a rule for correcting unjust cases.In general,if guilty and not guilty can be both proved by certain evidence in a doubtful case but it is difficult to judge the case because of insufficient evidence,the suspect shall be assumed to be not guilty;if the evidence meets the standard for proof,or the defender voluntarily pleads guilty,the suspect can be given a lesser punishment in case of the judge’s doubtful inner conviction.