论证明责任的阶段性

On the Stage of Burden of Proof

英美法系是以"事实"出发来把握诉讼,源于司法权力对陪审团的控制;大陆法系则以"规范"为起点解决纠纷,源于立法权力对法官的信任。优势证明标准与高度盖然性的证明标准是其差异最显著的表征。两大法系的诉讼模式与理念在中国司法改革的借鉴路径上不断撞击,司法实践中曾有偏颇地追求程序正义的时段。裁判意义上的证明责任被频繁适用,扭曲着制度设计的本意;法官裁量权不适当的介入客观证明责任的分配,冲击着证明责任"规范说"的基石。司法裁判积聚了民众的些许怨恨,司法实践面临着腐败的危险。将视野纳入主观证明责任的领域,链接当事人的证据协助义务的行为规范与证明妨碍的结果责任,以证明标准的渐进化来统携不同诉讼阶段的证明责任,以新的维度来探求证明责任理论的研究。

The continental law system and common law system apply different methods to resolve disputes.Advantage standards of proof and high standards of proof are the most significant differences of characterization.The court to judge the case is based on the burden of proof,become the normality of the judicial practice,which distorts the original idea of the system.The judge jurisdiction involve in objective proof responsibility,thus hitting the fundamental theory of proof responsibility.There are some problems in the result of Judgments.The burden of proof theory is only limited in the field of objective burden of proof,which is not scientific practice.The research of Subjective burden of proof will be a new field,which focuses on assisting codes of conduct evidence and the corresponding proof of responsibility.