论正当防卫的证明责任:比较法视角

Burden of Proof in Justifiable Defense:Comparative Law Perspective

中外对于正当防卫证明责任的规定存在差异。英美法系中,正当防卫被视为被告人的积极辩护事由,被告人承担提出证据的责任,达到使法官产生合理疑问的程度。大陆法系则认为正当防卫是对犯罪事实的否认,正当防卫不成立的证明责任由控方承担,被告人不承担正当防卫的证明责任。在我国,正当防卫案件的证明责任存在责任分配不明的问题,正当防卫的证明责任分配属于法院自由裁量权的范围。为贯彻法不能向不法让步的法治精神,我国应当构建新型证明责任分配体系,由检察机关承担正当防卫不成立的证明责任,对于侵害事实清楚但防卫事实不明的,公安司法机关应当作出被告人构成正当防卫的认定。

There are differences in the provisions of burden of proof in justifiable defense between China and foreign countries.In the common law system, justifiable defense is regarded as theactive defense of the defendant, and the defendant bears the burden of presenting evidence to the extent that the judge has a reasonable doubt.In the civil law system, justifiable defense is the denial of criminal facts, and the prosecution shall bear the burden of proof for inconclusive justifiable defense, while the defendant shall not bear the burden of proof for justifiable defense.In China, the burden of proof in justifiable defense cases has the problem of unclear responsibility distribution, and the burden of proof in justifiable defense belongs to the scope of court’s discretion.In order to carry out the spirit of the rule of law that the law cannot give way to illegal acts, China should construct a new distribution system of burden of proof, in which the prosecutor should assume the burden of proof if justifiable defense is not established, and the public security and the court should affirm that the defendant constitutes justifiable defense if the facts of the infringement are clear but the facts of defense are unclear.