非法證據排除的規範原理新論——以「制裁—救濟」為分析框架

非法證據排除規則存在「制裁」與「救濟」兩種規範原理，這一分歧在我國並未得到認真對待。制裁原理以司法正潔與威懾違法作為證據排除的正當依據，具有國家本位、義務本位、違法者本位的基本特徵。目前我國主流觀點將證據排除理解為「程序性制裁」，支持制裁原理下的非法證據排除規則，由此導致證據排除的存在意義難題、範圍失控難題、裁量模糊難題等理論與實踐問題。與之相對，救濟原理引入矯正正義作為正當依據，主張證據排除是「程序性救濟」，其目的在於恢復原狀，具有個人本位、權利本位、受害者本位的基本特徵。與制裁原理相比，救濟原理可以為我國證據排除的存在意義、範圍限制、裁量標準等提供更為妥當的解釋。雖然如此，單一救濟原理下的證據排除同樣存在其缺陷。基於原理協同的立場，以制裁原理補充並修正部分解釋結論，對我國非法證據排除規則而言更具積極意義。

There are two normative rationales— “sanction'' and “remedy'' —in the exclusionary rules, the difference of which has not been taken seriously in China. The rationale of sanction is based on judicial integrity and deterrence, featuring as state-oriented, duty-oriented and lawbreaker-oriented. At present, the mainstream opinion in China interprets the exclusion of evidence as a ''procedural sanction'' and supports the exclusionary rules under the sanction rationale, which leads to some theoretical and practical problems, such as lack of value foundation, uncontrollable scope and vague discretion. In contrast, the remedy rationale introduces corrective justice as the justification of exclusionary rules, claiming that the exclusion of evidence is a “procedural remedy” to restore the original state, thus being individual-oriented .rights-oriented and victim-oriented. Compared with the sanction rationale. the rationale of remedy can provide a more appropriate explanation for the value foundation, scope restriction, and discretionary criteria of exclusionary rules in China, Nevertheless, the exclusion of evidence under single the remedy rationale is also insufficient. It would further improve the exclusionary rules in China if we introduce sanction rationale to supplement and amend some of the interpretation conclusion with a synergic point of view.