论文部分内容阅读
在证据裁判主义的审视下,公诉人和审判人员对被告人“拒不认罪”表述的“从重处罚”之量刑意见,存在着两个“证据裁判悖论”:一是它限制、剥夺了被告人的质证权利,二是它紊乱了公诉人、审判人员在证据裁判程序的角色;同时,对于被告人“拒不认罪”的各种情形,公诉人和法官皆有相应的控诉证据和裁判证据模式,即“庭前供述与其他证据相互印证”和(零口供)“其他证据的相互印证”两种(控诉或裁判)证据模式。对被告人“拒不认罪”进行“从重处罚”是不应当的,也没有必要。
Under the judgment of evidence adjudication, there are two “evidence referee paradoxes” that the public prosecutor and the judicial officer impose the sentencing imposition of the “imposing penalty” on the defendant’s “refusal to admit guilty”: firstly, it Restricted and deprived the defendant of the right to cross-examination, and secondly, it disrupted the public prosecutors and judicial personnel in the role of evidence adjudication procedures. Meanwhile, both public prosecutors and judges have corresponding Complaint evidence and referee evidence model, namely “pretrial confession and other evidence mutual proof ” and (zero confession) “mutual proof of other evidence ” two (complaint or referee) evidence mode. The defendant “refuse to admit guilty ” “heavy punishment ” is not necessary, nor is it necessary.