非法證據排除的規則與實效－－兼論我國非法證據排除規則的完善進路

The Suppress of Illegally Obtained Evidence: Rule and Effectiveness

2012年修正後的《刑事訴訟法》正式確立了非法證據排除規則。但是，從司法解釋上升為立法規範並不能自動解決非法證據排除規則的實效性問題。而且，通過分析2013年做出的有關非法證據排除請求的判決書，我們發現，在司法實踐中，法院往往將非法證據排除與供述的真實性問題捆綁在一起，不願意僅僅因為取證手段違法而排除證據。導致這一現狀的原因至少有兩點：在司法體制方面，法院因缺乏獨立性而無力承擔督導偵查違法的重任；在立法方面，立法用語的彈性以及回溯性證明的難度，致使排除規則過分依賴法院的自由裁量。因此，為了保證排除規則的實效性，我們建議通過以下技術化改造，增強排除規則適用的確定性：將直接面向事實的事後制裁規則轉變為一種面向程序的事前預防規則。

The exclusionary rule of illegally obtained evidence was formally incorporated into Chinese Criminal Procedure Law by the amendment of 2012. However, being a part of statute cannot guarantee the effectiveness of exclusionary rule in practice. Moreover, based on the judgments which deal with the motion to suppress the evidence obtained by torture puiported by the defense lawyers in 2013, courts usually combine the exclusionary rule with the truth of the suspects' confessions and are reluctant to exclude the confession merely because of the illegality of the evidence. There are at least two reasons for this: firstly, due to the lack of independence, Chinese courts cannot fulfill the task to discipline the police violation; secondly, because of the flexibility of the legal language and the difficulty of proving the fact of illegal means, such as torture, there is a wide range of discretion of judges on the application of the exclusionary rule. In order to make the exclusionary rule to be effective in practice, the law should make the exclusionary rule a clear-cut rule by modifying the current post-disciplining rule based on the fact of torture into a precautionary one based on the procedural violation.