刑事诉讼证据与监察证据的衔接问题研究
Research on the Connection between Criminal Procedure Evidence and Supervisory Evidence
DOI: 10.12677/DS.2023.93135, PDF,   
作者: 孙华建:贵州民族大学法学院,贵州 贵阳
关键词: 刑事诉讼证据监察证据衔接 Criminal Procedure Evidence Supervision Evidence Cohesion
摘要: 我国《监察法》的出台,将监察程序与刑事诉讼程序做了区分。许多学者认为,监察证据主要体现于职务类犯罪的证据适用范围,可以从案件范围适用上于刑事诉讼证据做出区分,深度理解不难发现,这只是从《监察法》和《刑事诉讼法》相关规定的概念性理解,不能体系性地对刑事诉讼证据与监察证据的衔接问题进行回答。监察证据和刑事诉讼证据区分的实质重心,应当放在两类证据在个案案件中作为定案根据的可靠性上。
Abstract: The introduction of the Supervision Law makes a dis-tinction between the supervision procedure and the criminal procedure. Many scholars believe that the evidence of supervision is mainly reflected in the scope of application of evidence of duty crimes, which can be distinguished from the scope of application of cases to the evidence of criminal pro-ceedings. It is not difficult to find that this is only a conceptual understanding from the relevant provisions of the Supervision Law and the Criminal Procedure Law, and it is unable to systematically answer the question of the connection between criminal litigation evidence and supervision evi-dence. The essential focus of the distinction between supervisory evidence and criminal litigation evidence should be placed on the reliability of the two types of evidence as the basis of decision in individual cases.
文章引用:孙华建. 刑事诉讼证据与监察证据的衔接问题研究[J]. 争议解决, 2023, 9(3): 1002-1007. https://doi.org/10.12677/DS.2023.93135

参考文献

[1] 韩旭. 监察委员会办理职务犯罪案件程序问题研究——以768份裁判文书为例[J]. 浙江工商大学学报, 2020(4): 25-40.
[2] 刘文涛, 欧洪君. 反思与完善: 监察证据在刑事诉讼中的运用问题研究[J]. 西南交通大学学报(社会科学版), 2022, 23(2): 60-69.
[3] 冯俊伟. 《监察法》实施中的证据衔接问题[J]. 行政法学研究, 2019(6): 85-95.
[4] 陈瑞华. 论证据相互印证规制[J]. 法商研究, 2012, 29(1): 112-123.
[5] 张中. 论监察案件的证据标准——以刑事诉讼证据为参考[J]. 比较法研究, 2019(1): 16-27.
[6] 潘侠. 监察证据与刑事诉讼证据的衔接路径研究——基于程序协调的视角[J]. 证据科学, 2021, 29(4): 404-416.