“排除合理懷疑”適用效果的實證研究──以《刑事訴訟法》修改前後共40件案件爲樣本

The Empirical Study of Application Effect of “Beyond a Reasonable Doubt” Based on 40 Cases Before and After the Amendment of Criminal Procedure Law

通過對“排除合理懷疑”納入《刑事訴訟法》前後共40件案件的對比分析，可以發現“排除合理懷疑”的引入對證明標準的實踐運作帶來一些積極變化，使法官對證據的主觀分析和判斷“可以言說”；更有利于防止錯案；也使證明標準的適用更爲合理化。但同時“排除合理懷疑”的適用也存在一些問題，如部分法官對于“排除合理懷疑”的理解有偏差；“排除合理懷疑”適用的隨意性較大；幷且其適用缺乏實質性。爲進一步發揮“排除合理懷疑”的實效，可從證據法和程序法方面采取若干措施，使其成爲可適用性更强的證明標准。首先，應從法解釋學角度對“排除合理懷疑”進行具體化闡釋，以便于司法人員理解和適用；其次，應加强證明標準判斷中的證據推理和說理要求；再次，應繼續推進庭審實質化改革，通過實質化的庭審而發現和排除“合理懷疑”。 Through comparative analysis of 40 cases before and after the amendment of Criminal Procedure Law, we can find that the standard of beyond a reasonable doubt bring some positive change to proof standard, which makes judge’s subjective analysis and judgement openable, and be in more favor of prevent misjudged cases. However, this standard still has some practical problems, that is, some judges misunderstand the exact meaning of it, and ifs application breadth and depth is insufficient, or even has some arbitrariness. To im­prove the application effect of it, some measures should be taken from the perspective of procedural and evi­dence law. First, the exact meaning of beyond a reasonable doubt should be explained through rechtsdogma- tik to make it easy for judicial officials. Second, the ability of reasoning bared on evidence should be en­hanced. At last, the reform of substantial trial should be pushed forward.

Through comparative analysis of 40 cases before and after the amendment of Criminal Procedure Law, we can find that the standard of beyond a reasonable doubt bring some positive change to proof standard, which makes judge’s subjective analysis and judgement openable, and be in more favor of prevent misjudged cases. However, this standard still has some practical problems, that is, some judges misunderstand the exact meaning of it, and ifs application breadth and depth is insufficient, or even has some arbitrariness. To im­prove the application effect of it, some measures should be taken from the perspective of procedural and evi­dence law. First, the exact meaning of beyond a reasonable doubt should be explained through rechtsdogma- tik to make it easy for judicial officials. Second, the ability of reasoning bared on evidence should be en­hanced. At last, the reform of substantial trial should be pushed forward.