品格证据规则比较研究与制度构建
|
摘要
品格证据是能够证明某些诉讼参与人的品格或者品格特征,并进而推论其依照其品格行事的证据。以表现形式为标准,可分为名声证据、意见证据和具体行为实例。以证明内容为标准,可分为行为历史、声誉和性格。以主体为标准,可分为被告人的品格证据、被害人的品格证据、证人的品格证据和其他人的品格。以道德评价为标准,可分为良好品格证据和不良品格证据不良品格证据。以品格证据与案件事实的关系为标准,可分为以实质性要素为内容和以非买质性要素为内容。品格证据的特征主要包括主观性、证明价值有限和易引起偏见。品格证据规则的理论基础主要是证据的关联性理论和交叉询问制度及证人可信性制度。
在英美的刑事审判中,被告人的良好品格证据的关联性往往具有双重特点,它既与被告人作证时作为证人的可信性相关,也与被告人是否实施了其被指控的犯罪相关。大陆法系国家在确立证据规则时避免了英美法系因陪审员参与审判而将关注的焦点置于对各种证据材料是否具有证据能力以及不同主体的证言的证明力大小等具体而琐细的规定,在多数情况下由经过正规训练的职业法官接触除某些违反强制性规定的证据材料以外的大部分案件证据材料,以此为基础认定案件事实。
构建品格证据规则是充分保障被告人权利以实现控辩制衡的需要,保障当事人的合法权益是程序公正的应有之义,也是司法文明的重要标志。当然,与其说品格证据规则完全一边倒地倾向于保护辩方,倒不如说是一把双刃剑,并未因其对辩方的政策倾斜而导致控辩失衡。品格证据规则还有助于正确量刑以实现司法处遇个别化的需要。
我国刑事诉讼程序对客观真实的追求并不妨碍品格证据规则的系统构建,英美法系品格证据规则的建立也同样是建立在对探求发现客观真实的基础之上。实际上任何证据规则的建立,都是为了更好地发现事实真相,或者说是更公正、更效率地发现事实真相。从一角度来看,品格证据规则的建立与刑事诉讼程序的目的并不冲突,反而非常契合。因此,在我国目前的刑事审判中建立系统的品格证据规则并不存在任何制度性的障碍。
我国应在立法中明确规定品格证据规则,分别规定被告人、被害人、证人品格证据的运用与判断,并通过建立程序性制裁制度、品格调查制度和完善证人出庭制度、公民信用体系,为品格证据制度的健康运行提供制度保障。
Character evidences are to prove the characters or the features of some participants in the proceedings, and thus to infer evidences of acting in accordance with his characters. According to the form of his performance, it can be divided into reputation evidences, opinion evidences and instances of specific acts. According to the contents of the evidences, it can be divided into behavioral history, reputation and characters. According to the subjects, it can be divided into the defendant's character evidences, the victim's character evidences, witnesses'character evidences and other people's. According to the moral evaluations, it can be divided into good and bad character evidences. According to the links between character evidences and the facts of the case, it can be divided into the substantive elements and immaterial elements. The features of character evidences include subjectivity, limited value to prove and prejudice. The theory of character evidences is based mainly on the theory of relevance of evidences and cross examination and witness'credibility system.
In the criminal trial of Anglo-American Legal System, the relevance of the defendant's good character evidences has a dual features, which is not only relevant to the defendant's credibility, but also to whether the defendant carried out its alleged crime. Continental Legal System avoided the focus on whether the testimony is evident and the proof of the testimony, which is adopted by the common law. In most cases, the professional judges recognize the facts of the case after they read most of the materials except some deregulated materials.
The rule of character evidences is to fully protect the rights of defendants to achieve the balance between the prosecutor and the defendant, and the legitimate rights of the parts involved, it is also an important mark of judicial civilization. Of course, he theory of character evidences is a double-edged blade more than the favor of the defendants in order to maintain this balance. The rule of character evidences helps to correctly sentence in order to achieve judicial treatments according to specific needs.
Criminal Procedure in China is also accordance to the character evidences when it is pursuing the truth, while the common law is established on the pursuit of truth too. In fact the establishment of any rules of evidence is to find the truth, in other words, it is to find the truth in a fairer and more efficient way. From the other point of view, the establishment of character evidences is not contrast to the criminal procedures, otherwise it is very correspond. Therefore, there are no institutional barriers during China's establishment of character evidences.
China should clearly define the rules of character evidences in legislation, such as accused persons, victims and the use and judgment of character evidences. We should also offer institutional guarantee for the healthy operation of the character evidences by establishing the procedural sanctions, the investigation system of characters and the goodness of defendants in court.
在英美的刑事审判中,被告人的良好品格证据的关联性往往具有双重特点,它既与被告人作证时作为证人的可信性相关,也与被告人是否实施了其被指控的犯罪相关。大陆法系国家在确立证据规则时避免了英美法系因陪审员参与审判而将关注的焦点置于对各种证据材料是否具有证据能力以及不同主体的证言的证明力大小等具体而琐细的规定,在多数情况下由经过正规训练的职业法官接触除某些违反强制性规定的证据材料以外的大部分案件证据材料,以此为基础认定案件事实。
构建品格证据规则是充分保障被告人权利以实现控辩制衡的需要,保障当事人的合法权益是程序公正的应有之义,也是司法文明的重要标志。当然,与其说品格证据规则完全一边倒地倾向于保护辩方,倒不如说是一把双刃剑,并未因其对辩方的政策倾斜而导致控辩失衡。品格证据规则还有助于正确量刑以实现司法处遇个别化的需要。
我国刑事诉讼程序对客观真实的追求并不妨碍品格证据规则的系统构建,英美法系品格证据规则的建立也同样是建立在对探求发现客观真实的基础之上。实际上任何证据规则的建立,都是为了更好地发现事实真相,或者说是更公正、更效率地发现事实真相。从一角度来看,品格证据规则的建立与刑事诉讼程序的目的并不冲突,反而非常契合。因此,在我国目前的刑事审判中建立系统的品格证据规则并不存在任何制度性的障碍。
我国应在立法中明确规定品格证据规则,分别规定被告人、被害人、证人品格证据的运用与判断,并通过建立程序性制裁制度、品格调查制度和完善证人出庭制度、公民信用体系,为品格证据制度的健康运行提供制度保障。
Character evidences are to prove the characters or the features of some participants in the proceedings, and thus to infer evidences of acting in accordance with his characters. According to the form of his performance, it can be divided into reputation evidences, opinion evidences and instances of specific acts. According to the contents of the evidences, it can be divided into behavioral history, reputation and characters. According to the subjects, it can be divided into the defendant's character evidences, the victim's character evidences, witnesses'character evidences and other people's. According to the moral evaluations, it can be divided into good and bad character evidences. According to the links between character evidences and the facts of the case, it can be divided into the substantive elements and immaterial elements. The features of character evidences include subjectivity, limited value to prove and prejudice. The theory of character evidences is based mainly on the theory of relevance of evidences and cross examination and witness'credibility system.
In the criminal trial of Anglo-American Legal System, the relevance of the defendant's good character evidences has a dual features, which is not only relevant to the defendant's credibility, but also to whether the defendant carried out its alleged crime. Continental Legal System avoided the focus on whether the testimony is evident and the proof of the testimony, which is adopted by the common law. In most cases, the professional judges recognize the facts of the case after they read most of the materials except some deregulated materials.
The rule of character evidences is to fully protect the rights of defendants to achieve the balance between the prosecutor and the defendant, and the legitimate rights of the parts involved, it is also an important mark of judicial civilization. Of course, he theory of character evidences is a double-edged blade more than the favor of the defendants in order to maintain this balance. The rule of character evidences helps to correctly sentence in order to achieve judicial treatments according to specific needs.
Criminal Procedure in China is also accordance to the character evidences when it is pursuing the truth, while the common law is established on the pursuit of truth too. In fact the establishment of any rules of evidence is to find the truth, in other words, it is to find the truth in a fairer and more efficient way. From the other point of view, the establishment of character evidences is not contrast to the criminal procedures, otherwise it is very correspond. Therefore, there are no institutional barriers during China's establishment of character evidences.
China should clearly define the rules of character evidences in legislation, such as accused persons, victims and the use and judgment of character evidences. We should also offer institutional guarantee for the healthy operation of the character evidences by establishing the procedural sanctions, the investigation system of characters and the goodness of defendants in court.
引文
1 Black's Law Dictionary (8th ed.2004),p1678.
2 Peter Murphy.Murphy on Evidence.Oxford:Oxford University Press,2003,116-123.
3约翰·W·斯特龙.麦考密克论证据[M].汤维建.北京：中国政法大学出版社,2004,379.
4卞建林.证据法学[M].北京：中国政法大学出版社,2003,64-75.
5王玉,苏世兰.TOP心理学教程[M].北京：北京出版社,1998,97.
6蔡巍.美国联邦品格证据规则及其诉讼理念[J].法学杂志,2003,4(24)：66.
7曹建明.诉讼证据制度研究[M].北京：人民法院出版社,2001：176.
8曹建明.诉讼证据制度研究[M].北京：人民法院出版社,2001,167-168.
9田野.刑事品格证据排除规则研究[D].秦皇岛：燕山大学马克思主义与思想政治教育学院,2005.
10[日]田口守一.刑事诉讼法,刘迪.北京：法律出版社,2000：283
11刘金友.证据法学.北京：中国政法大学出版社,2001：117。
12何家弘.用品格证明危险性的探索——评刘立霞博士的新著《品格证据在刑事案件中的运用》[J].河北法学,2009,(2)：196-197.
13马克昌.近代西方刑法学说史略[M].北京：中国检察出版社,1999：63,94。
14 R.J.Allen,R.B.Kuhns:An Analytical Approach to Evidence:Text,Problems,and Cases.Boston.Toronto,London,1989:216
15蔡巍.美国联邦品格证据规则及其诉讼理念[J].法学杂志,2003,(4)：66
16[美]麦克尔·格莱姆.联邦证据法[M].北京：法律出版社,1999：98
17 Peter Tillers. What is Wrong with Character Evidence?.http://www.tillers.net/character.html
18 Black's Law Dictionary (8th ed.2004),p4033.
19 Black's Law Dictionary (8th ed.2004),p1682.
20 Black's Law Dictionary (8th ed.2004),p1684.
21约翰·w·斯特龙.麦考密克论证据[M].汤维建等译,北京：中国政法大学出版社,2004,80.
22约翰·w·斯特龙.麦考密克论证据[M].汤维建等译,北京：中国政法大学出版社,2004,49.
23 Paul Roberts,Adrian Zuckerman,Criminal Evidence,Oxford University Press,2004,p.258.
24高忠智.美国证据法新解——关联性证据及其排除规则[M].北京：法律出版社,2004,117.
25约翰·w·斯特龙.麦考密克论证据[M].汤维建等译,北京：中国政法大学出版社,2004,95-96.
26 I.H.Dennis,The law of evidence,Sweet & Maxwell,2002,p.619.
27 M.N. Howard, phipson on Evidence,Sweet&Maxwell,2000,p.355
28 Id.at.355.
29 Supra note62,at,355-356.
30 Alan Taylor,Principles of Evidence,Cavendish Publish Limited,2000,p.318
31 SUPRA NOTE62.AT.356.
32 Alan Taylor,Principles of Evidence,Cavendish Publish Limited,2000,p.322
33 Alan Taylor,Principles of Evidence,Cavendish Publish Limited,2000,p.369
34孙长永.英国2003年刑事审判法及其释义[M].北京：法律出版社,2005,587-588.
35高忠智.美国证据法新解——关联性证据及其排除规则[M].北京：法律出版社,2004,65.
36 Raymond Emson,Evidence,Macmillan Press LTD,1999.p.102.
37 Peter Murphy,Murphy on Evidence,Oxford University Press,2003,p.136
38徐昀.品格证据规则的反思与重构[J].河北法学,2009(2)：60.
39徐昀.品格证据规则的反思与重构[J].河北法学,2009(2)：62.
40约翰·w·斯特龙.麦考密克论证据[M].汤维建等译,北京：中国政法大学出版社,2004,94.
41这种情况实际上是一种对强奸盾牌条款的例外,强奸盾牌条款禁止被害人与被告人以外的其他人发生性行为的证据在法庭上出示,但是却允许被告人提出其与被害人发生性行为系出于被害人的自愿,或者二人曾经发生过性行为的事实。
42何家弘、姚荣吉.两大法系证据制度比较论[J].比较法研究.2003(4)：57.
43米尔吉安.R.达马斯卡.比较法视野中的证据制度[M].吴宏耀、魏晓娜泽.北京：中国人民公安大学出版社2006,296.
44 J.David Michaels.Character Evidence.New York:Aspen Publishers,1995,203
45蔡巍.美国联邦品格证据规则及其诉讼理念[J].法学杂志,2003,4(24)：66.
46大谷实.刑事政策学[M].黎宏.北京：法律出版社,2000,163.
47李子煊,王进.美国品格证据规则及其借鉴意义[J].安徽理工大学学报,2006,8(3)：93-94.
48马剑萍.品格证据研究[D].北京：中国政法大学法学院,2002.
49郭欣阳,高树勇.未成年人犯罪缓刑制度研究[J].燕山大学学报,2005,7(5)：1.
50张明楷.刑法学[M].北京：法律出版社,2007,714-715.
51赵秉志.侵犯人身权利犯罪疑难问题的司法对策[M].长春：吉林人民出版社,2001,]78.
52陈兴良.刑法哲学[M].北京：中国政法大学出版社,2004,152-153.
53马剑萍.品格证据研究.[D].北京：中国政法大学法学院,2002.
54何家弘.用品格证明危险性的探索——评刘立霞博士的新著《品格证据在刑事案件中的运用》[D].河北法学,2009,(2)：198.
55谷口安平.程序的正义与诉讼[M].王亚新,刘荣军.北京：中国政法大学出版社,2002,27.
56吴汉东.证据法学[M].北京：北京大学出版社,2007,41-45.
57刘宇平.品格证据规则研究[D].重庆：西南政法大学法学院,2007,109.
58K·S·肯尼,J·W·塞西尔·特纳.肯尼刑法原理[M].王国庆,李启家.北京：华夏出版社,1989,484.
59何家弘.刑事证据制度改革的前沿问题[N].江苏法制报,2005-6-13.
60刘宇平.品格证据规则研究[D].重庆：西南政法大学法学院,2007,119.
61徐静村.21世纪中国刑事程序改革研究[M].北京：法律出版社,2003,262.
62刘宇平.品格证据规则研究[D].重庆：西南政法大学法学院,2007,99-100.
63刘立霞,张晶.以模糊视角审视性侵犯案件中被告人的品格证据[J].中国刑事法杂志,2009(7)：84.
64刘宇平.品格证据规则研究[D].重庆：西南政法大学法学院,2007,112.
65刘立霞,尹璐,路海霞.品格证据在刑事案件中的运用[M].北京：中国检察出版社,2008,21-22.
66刘宇平.品格证据规则研究[D].重庆：西南政法大学法学院,2007,116.
67杨雄.未成年人刑事案件中社会调查制度的运用[J].法学论坛,2008(1)：46.
68刘立霞,尹璐,路海霞.品格证据在刑事案件中的运用[M].北京：中国检察出版社,2008,21-22.
69宣誓从狭义上理解指具有宗教意味的声明,但从广义上理解,还可以包括郑重声明。狭义上的宣誓和郑重声明之间的主要区别在于是否具有宗教信仰。一般情况下,可以对宣誓作广义上的理解。
70陈瑞华.问题与主义之间[M].北京：中国人民大学出版社,2003,100.
71孙丹琳.传闻证据规则及本土化构建[D].上海：复旦大学法学院,2007,28.
[1]卞建林.证据法学[M].北京：中国政法大学出版社,2003.
[2]曹建明.诉讼证据制度研究[M].北京：人民法院出版社,2001.
[3]陈兴良.刑法哲学[M].北京：中国政法大学出版社,2004.
[4]陈瑞华.问题与主义之间[M].北京：中国人民大学出版社,2003.
[5]高忠智.美国证据法新解——关联性证据及其排除规则[M].北京：法律出版社,2004.
[6]刘金友.证据法学.北京：中国政法大学出版社,2001.
[7]刘立霞,尹璐,路海霞.品格证据在刑事案件中的运用[M].北京：中国检察出版社,2008.
[8]马克昌.近代西方刑法学说史略[M].北京：中国检察出版社,1999.
[9]孙丹琳.传闻证据规则及本土化构建[D].上海：复旦大学法学院,2007.
[10]孙长永.英国2003年刑事审判法及其释义[M].北京：法律出版社,2005.
[11]徐静村.21世纪中国刑事程序改革研究[M].北京：法律出版社,2003.
[12]吴汉东.证据法学[M].北京：北京大学出版社,2007.
[13]王玉,苏世兰.TOP心理学教程[M].北京：北京出版社,1998.
[14]赵秉志.侵犯人身权利犯罪疑难问题的司法对策[M].长春：吉林人民出版社,2001.
[15]张明楷.刑法学[M].北京：法律出版社,2007.
[1]蔡巍.美国联邦品格证据规则及其诉讼理念[J].法学杂志,2003,4(24).
[2]李子煊,王进.美国品格证据规则及其借鉴意义[J].安徽理工大学学报,2006,8(3).
[3]刘立霞,张晶.以模糊视角审视性侵犯案件中被告人的品格证据[J].中国刑事法杂志,2009(7).
[4]何家弘.用品格证明危险性的探索——评刘立霞博士的新著《品格证据在刑事案件中的运用》[J].河北法学,2009,(2).
[5]何家弘、姚荣吉.两大法系证据制度比较论[J].比较法研究.2003(4).
[6]郭欣阳,高树勇.未成年人犯罪缓刑制度研究[J].燕山大学学报,2005,7(5).
[7]徐昀.品格证据规则的反思与重构[J].河北法学,2009(2).
[8]杨雄.未成年人刑事案件中社会调查制度的运用[J].法学论坛,2008(1).
[1]刘宇平.品格证据规则研究[D].重庆：西南政法大学法学院,2007.
[2]马剑萍.品格证据研究[D].北京：中国政法大学法学院,2002.
[3]田野.刑事品格证据排除规则研究[D].秦皇岛：燕山大学马克思主义与思想政治教育学院,2005.
[1]何家弘.刑事证据制度改革的前沿问题[N].江苏法制报,2005-6-13.
[1]大谷实.刑事政策学[M].黎宏.北京：法律出版社,2000.
[2]谷口安平.程序的正义与诉讼[M].王亚新,刘荣军.北京：中国政法大学出版社,2002.
[3]约翰·W·斯特龙.麦考密克论证据[M].汤维建.北京：中国政法大学出版社,2004.
[4]K·S·肯尼,J·w·塞西尔·特纳.肯尼刑法原理[M].王国庆,李启家.北京：华夏出版社,1989.
[5]麦克尔·格莱姆.联邦证据法[M].北京：法律出版社,1999.
[6]田口守一.刑事诉讼法,刘迪.北京：法律出版社,2000.
[7]米尔吉安.R.达马斯卡.比较法视野中的证据制度[M].吴宏耀、魏晓娜译.北京：中国人民公安大学出版社2006.
[1]Alan Taylor, Principles of Evidence, Cavendish Publish Limited,2000.
[2]Black's Law Dictionary (8th ed.2004).
[3]I. H. Dennis, The law of evidence, Sweet &Maxwell,2002.
[4]J.David Michaels. Character Evidence. New York:Aspen Publishers,1995.
[5]M. N. Howard. phipson on Evidence, Sweet&Maxwell,2000.
[6]Paul Roberts, Adrian Zuckerman, Criminal Evidence, Oxford University Press,2004.
[7]Peter Murphy. Murphy on Evidence. Oxford:Oxford University Press,2003.
[8]Peter Tillers. What is Wrong with Character Evidence?
[9]Peter Murphy, Murphy on Evidence, Oxford University Press,2003.
[10]Raymond Emson, Evidence, Macmillan Press LTD,1999.
[11]R. J.Allen, R. B. Kuhns:An Analytical Approach to Evidence:Text, Problems, and Cases, Boston, Toronto, London,1989.
2 Peter Murphy.Murphy on Evidence.Oxford:Oxford University Press,2003,116-123.
3约翰·W·斯特龙.麦考密克论证据[M].汤维建.北京：中国政法大学出版社,2004,379.
4卞建林.证据法学[M].北京：中国政法大学出版社,2003,64-75.
5王玉,苏世兰.TOP心理学教程[M].北京：北京出版社,1998,97.
6蔡巍.美国联邦品格证据规则及其诉讼理念[J].法学杂志,2003,4(24)：66.
7曹建明.诉讼证据制度研究[M].北京：人民法院出版社,2001：176.
8曹建明.诉讼证据制度研究[M].北京：人民法院出版社,2001,167-168.
9田野.刑事品格证据排除规则研究[D].秦皇岛：燕山大学马克思主义与思想政治教育学院,2005.
10[日]田口守一.刑事诉讼法,刘迪.北京：法律出版社,2000：283
11刘金友.证据法学.北京：中国政法大学出版社,2001：117。
12何家弘.用品格证明危险性的探索——评刘立霞博士的新著《品格证据在刑事案件中的运用》[J].河北法学,2009,(2)：196-197.
13马克昌.近代西方刑法学说史略[M].北京：中国检察出版社,1999：63,94。
14 R.J.Allen,R.B.Kuhns:An Analytical Approach to Evidence:Text,Problems,and Cases.Boston.Toronto,London,1989:216
15蔡巍.美国联邦品格证据规则及其诉讼理念[J].法学杂志,2003,(4)：66
16[美]麦克尔·格莱姆.联邦证据法[M].北京：法律出版社,1999：98
17 Peter Tillers. What is Wrong with Character Evidence?.http://www.tillers.net/character.html
18 Black's Law Dictionary (8th ed.2004),p4033.
19 Black's Law Dictionary (8th ed.2004),p1682.
20 Black's Law Dictionary (8th ed.2004),p1684.
21约翰·w·斯特龙.麦考密克论证据[M].汤维建等译,北京：中国政法大学出版社,2004,80.
22约翰·w·斯特龙.麦考密克论证据[M].汤维建等译,北京：中国政法大学出版社,2004,49.
23 Paul Roberts,Adrian Zuckerman,Criminal Evidence,Oxford University Press,2004,p.258.
24高忠智.美国证据法新解——关联性证据及其排除规则[M].北京：法律出版社,2004,117.
25约翰·w·斯特龙.麦考密克论证据[M].汤维建等译,北京：中国政法大学出版社,2004,95-96.
26 I.H.Dennis,The law of evidence,Sweet & Maxwell,2002,p.619.
27 M.N. Howard, phipson on Evidence,Sweet&Maxwell,2000,p.355
28 Id.at.355.
29 Supra note62,at,355-356.
30 Alan Taylor,Principles of Evidence,Cavendish Publish Limited,2000,p.318
31 SUPRA NOTE62.AT.356.
32 Alan Taylor,Principles of Evidence,Cavendish Publish Limited,2000,p.322
33 Alan Taylor,Principles of Evidence,Cavendish Publish Limited,2000,p.369
34孙长永.英国2003年刑事审判法及其释义[M].北京：法律出版社,2005,587-588.
35高忠智.美国证据法新解——关联性证据及其排除规则[M].北京：法律出版社,2004,65.
36 Raymond Emson,Evidence,Macmillan Press LTD,1999.p.102.
37 Peter Murphy,Murphy on Evidence,Oxford University Press,2003,p.136
38徐昀.品格证据规则的反思与重构[J].河北法学,2009(2)：60.
39徐昀.品格证据规则的反思与重构[J].河北法学,2009(2)：62.
40约翰·w·斯特龙.麦考密克论证据[M].汤维建等译,北京：中国政法大学出版社,2004,94.
41这种情况实际上是一种对强奸盾牌条款的例外,强奸盾牌条款禁止被害人与被告人以外的其他人发生性行为的证据在法庭上出示,但是却允许被告人提出其与被害人发生性行为系出于被害人的自愿,或者二人曾经发生过性行为的事实。
42何家弘、姚荣吉.两大法系证据制度比较论[J].比较法研究.2003(4)：57.
43米尔吉安.R.达马斯卡.比较法视野中的证据制度[M].吴宏耀、魏晓娜泽.北京：中国人民公安大学出版社2006,296.
44 J.David Michaels.Character Evidence.New York:Aspen Publishers,1995,203
45蔡巍.美国联邦品格证据规则及其诉讼理念[J].法学杂志,2003,4(24)：66.
46大谷实.刑事政策学[M].黎宏.北京：法律出版社,2000,163.
47李子煊,王进.美国品格证据规则及其借鉴意义[J].安徽理工大学学报,2006,8(3)：93-94.
48马剑萍.品格证据研究[D].北京：中国政法大学法学院,2002.
49郭欣阳,高树勇.未成年人犯罪缓刑制度研究[J].燕山大学学报,2005,7(5)：1.
50张明楷.刑法学[M].北京：法律出版社,2007,714-715.
51赵秉志.侵犯人身权利犯罪疑难问题的司法对策[M].长春：吉林人民出版社,2001,]78.
52陈兴良.刑法哲学[M].北京：中国政法大学出版社,2004,152-153.
53马剑萍.品格证据研究.[D].北京：中国政法大学法学院,2002.
54何家弘.用品格证明危险性的探索——评刘立霞博士的新著《品格证据在刑事案件中的运用》[D].河北法学,2009,(2)：198.
55谷口安平.程序的正义与诉讼[M].王亚新,刘荣军.北京：中国政法大学出版社,2002,27.
56吴汉东.证据法学[M].北京：北京大学出版社,2007,41-45.
57刘宇平.品格证据规则研究[D].重庆：西南政法大学法学院,2007,109.
58K·S·肯尼,J·W·塞西尔·特纳.肯尼刑法原理[M].王国庆,李启家.北京：华夏出版社,1989,484.
59何家弘.刑事证据制度改革的前沿问题[N].江苏法制报,2005-6-13.
60刘宇平.品格证据规则研究[D].重庆：西南政法大学法学院,2007,119.
61徐静村.21世纪中国刑事程序改革研究[M].北京：法律出版社,2003,262.
62刘宇平.品格证据规则研究[D].重庆：西南政法大学法学院,2007,99-100.
63刘立霞,张晶.以模糊视角审视性侵犯案件中被告人的品格证据[J].中国刑事法杂志,2009(7)：84.
64刘宇平.品格证据规则研究[D].重庆：西南政法大学法学院,2007,112.
65刘立霞,尹璐,路海霞.品格证据在刑事案件中的运用[M].北京：中国检察出版社,2008,21-22.
66刘宇平.品格证据规则研究[D].重庆：西南政法大学法学院,2007,116.
67杨雄.未成年人刑事案件中社会调查制度的运用[J].法学论坛,2008(1)：46.
68刘立霞,尹璐,路海霞.品格证据在刑事案件中的运用[M].北京：中国检察出版社,2008,21-22.
69宣誓从狭义上理解指具有宗教意味的声明,但从广义上理解,还可以包括郑重声明。狭义上的宣誓和郑重声明之间的主要区别在于是否具有宗教信仰。一般情况下,可以对宣誓作广义上的理解。
70陈瑞华.问题与主义之间[M].北京：中国人民大学出版社,2003,100.
71孙丹琳.传闻证据规则及本土化构建[D].上海：复旦大学法学院,2007,28.
[1]卞建林.证据法学[M].北京：中国政法大学出版社,2003.
[2]曹建明.诉讼证据制度研究[M].北京：人民法院出版社,2001.
[3]陈兴良.刑法哲学[M].北京：中国政法大学出版社,2004.
[4]陈瑞华.问题与主义之间[M].北京：中国人民大学出版社,2003.
[5]高忠智.美国证据法新解——关联性证据及其排除规则[M].北京：法律出版社,2004.
[6]刘金友.证据法学.北京：中国政法大学出版社,2001.
[7]刘立霞,尹璐,路海霞.品格证据在刑事案件中的运用[M].北京：中国检察出版社,2008.
[8]马克昌.近代西方刑法学说史略[M].北京：中国检察出版社,1999.
[9]孙丹琳.传闻证据规则及本土化构建[D].上海：复旦大学法学院,2007.
[10]孙长永.英国2003年刑事审判法及其释义[M].北京：法律出版社,2005.
[11]徐静村.21世纪中国刑事程序改革研究[M].北京：法律出版社,2003.
[12]吴汉东.证据法学[M].北京：北京大学出版社,2007.
[13]王玉,苏世兰.TOP心理学教程[M].北京：北京出版社,1998.
[14]赵秉志.侵犯人身权利犯罪疑难问题的司法对策[M].长春：吉林人民出版社,2001.
[15]张明楷.刑法学[M].北京：法律出版社,2007.
[1]蔡巍.美国联邦品格证据规则及其诉讼理念[J].法学杂志,2003,4(24).
[2]李子煊,王进.美国品格证据规则及其借鉴意义[J].安徽理工大学学报,2006,8(3).
[3]刘立霞,张晶.以模糊视角审视性侵犯案件中被告人的品格证据[J].中国刑事法杂志,2009(7).
[4]何家弘.用品格证明危险性的探索——评刘立霞博士的新著《品格证据在刑事案件中的运用》[J].河北法学,2009,(2).
[5]何家弘、姚荣吉.两大法系证据制度比较论[J].比较法研究.2003(4).
[6]郭欣阳,高树勇.未成年人犯罪缓刑制度研究[J].燕山大学学报,2005,7(5).
[7]徐昀.品格证据规则的反思与重构[J].河北法学,2009(2).
[8]杨雄.未成年人刑事案件中社会调查制度的运用[J].法学论坛,2008(1).
[1]刘宇平.品格证据规则研究[D].重庆：西南政法大学法学院,2007.
[2]马剑萍.品格证据研究[D].北京：中国政法大学法学院,2002.
[3]田野.刑事品格证据排除规则研究[D].秦皇岛：燕山大学马克思主义与思想政治教育学院,2005.
[1]何家弘.刑事证据制度改革的前沿问题[N].江苏法制报,2005-6-13.
[1]大谷实.刑事政策学[M].黎宏.北京：法律出版社,2000.
[2]谷口安平.程序的正义与诉讼[M].王亚新,刘荣军.北京：中国政法大学出版社,2002.
[3]约翰·W·斯特龙.麦考密克论证据[M].汤维建.北京：中国政法大学出版社,2004.
[4]K·S·肯尼,J·w·塞西尔·特纳.肯尼刑法原理[M].王国庆,李启家.北京：华夏出版社,1989.
[5]麦克尔·格莱姆.联邦证据法[M].北京：法律出版社,1999.
[6]田口守一.刑事诉讼法,刘迪.北京：法律出版社,2000.
[7]米尔吉安.R.达马斯卡.比较法视野中的证据制度[M].吴宏耀、魏晓娜译.北京：中国人民公安大学出版社2006.
[1]Alan Taylor, Principles of Evidence, Cavendish Publish Limited,2000.
[2]Black's Law Dictionary (8th ed.2004).
[3]I. H. Dennis, The law of evidence, Sweet &Maxwell,2002.
[4]J.David Michaels. Character Evidence. New York:Aspen Publishers,1995.
[5]M. N. Howard. phipson on Evidence, Sweet&Maxwell,2000.
[6]Paul Roberts, Adrian Zuckerman, Criminal Evidence, Oxford University Press,2004.
[7]Peter Murphy. Murphy on Evidence. Oxford:Oxford University Press,2003.
[8]Peter Tillers. What is Wrong with Character Evidence?
[9]Peter Murphy, Murphy on Evidence, Oxford University Press,2003.
[10]Raymond Emson, Evidence, Macmillan Press LTD,1999.
[11]R. J.Allen, R. B. Kuhns:An Analytical Approach to Evidence:Text, Problems, and Cases, Boston, Toronto, London,1989.
© 2004-2018 中国地质图书馆版权所有 京ICP备05064691号 京公网安备11010802017129号 地址：北京市海淀区学院路29号 邮编：100083 电话：办公室：(+86 10)66554848；文献借阅、咨询服务、科技查新：66554700 |