法学研究

文章摘要

证据属性层次论——基于证据规则结构体系的理论反思

On the Hierarchy of Evidence Attributes

DOI：

英文关键词: evidence attributes; evidence system; the system of evidence rules; evidence law

基金项目:

作者	单位
郑飞

摘要点击次数: 1627

全文下载次数: 129

中文摘要:

证据属性学说众说纷纭，四套话语体系并立，形成如此局面的根本原因是我国已有学说未认识到证据属性的层次性。层次性的第一个体现是要素论与结构论的区分，关联性(相关性)、真实性和合法性等要素属性是证据评价的基本要素，证据能力(可采性)和证明力等结构属性则体现事实认定的程序结构进程。三个要素属性之间是由相关性统领的平行关系，两个结构属性之间是基于程序结构进程的递进关系；同时，三个要素属性都不同程度地影响着对两个结构属性的审查判断。层次性的第二个体现是基于认识论与价值论的区分，可将证据属性分为自然属性与法律属性。在要素属性中，相关性和真实性是促进事实认定准确性之内部目标的自然属性，合法性是促进除事实认定准确性之外的外部目标的法律属性；在结构属性中，证据能力(可采性)是属于法律问题的法律属性，证明力是属于事实问题的自然属性。我国证据法学应从“只注重要素论”或“只注重结构论”迈向“要素论与结构论并重”的研究范式，并在深入理解“证据规则体系是证据属性层次性的逻辑展开”的基础上，通过改造后的西式结构属性或改良后的“中式结构属性三分法”重塑我国的证据规则体系。

英文摘要:

The fundamental reason for the existence of four sets of discourse system of evidence attributes in China is that currently the Chinese academia has not yet realized the hierarchy of evidence attributes. The first manifestation of this hierarchy is that, based on the distinction between element theory and structure theory, elemental attributes such as relevance, authenticity and legitimacy are the basic elements of evidence evaluation, and structural attributes such as competency of evidence (or admissibility) and probative force are the embodiments of the structural process of fact-finding procedure. Among them, the three elemental attributes are parallel to each other with relevance taking the lead, and the two structural attributes form a relationship of progression based on the structural process of procedure. Meanwhile, the three elemental attributes affect the judgment of the two structural attributes to varying degrees. The second embodiment of the hierarchy is that, based on the distinction between epistemology and axiology, evidence attributes can be divided into natural attributes and legislative attributes. Among the elemental attributes, relevance and authenticity are the natural attributes promoting the internal objective of the accuracy of fact-finding, and legitimacy is the legislative attribute promoting external objectives other than the accuracy of fact-finding. Among the structural attributes, the competency of evidence is the legislative attribute of the legal problem, and the probative force is the natural attribute of the factual problem. The research paradigm in China should be changed from one that “focuses only on elements theory” or “pays attention only to the structure theory” to one that “pays equal attention to elements theory and structure theory”. In addition, Chinese academia should reshape the system of evidence rules through the improved western structural attributes or the improved “three Chinese style structural attributes” on the basis of a deep understanding on the proposition that “the system of evidence rules is the logical extension of the hierarchy of evidence attributes”.

查看全文下载PDF阅读器

关闭