证据为何要补救?——刑事证据补救的逻辑与方法

Why should some evidence be redressed? – The internal logic and methods of the criminal evidence remedy

补救与排除是探讨证据资格的两种视角,是刑事证据资格的一体两面,排除规则与补救规则的理论根据在深层次上是相通的,只是角度不同。刑事证据补救有多层含义,其本质是证据资格的证明,即对系争证据用于证明案件事实的资格进行解释、论证的过程。因此,基于“发现真相”的客观需求而对证据真实性瑕疵和相关性瑕疵的补救,可称之为证据资格的“积极性补救”,又称“功能性补救”;具有相关性的证据被排除,唯一目的便是为了实施公共政策,所以当“政策实施”的目的落空从而允许采纳某证据时,我们便称之为证据资格的“消极性补救”,也称“政策性补救”。刑事证据的补救方式有补正、合理解释、重作、补强/印证等。其中,补正乃非实质性瑕疵的补救,证据重作是对证据内容的补救,合理解释即证据合法性的补救,补强/印证旨在证明力的补救。

Remedy and exclusion are two perspectives on the admissibility of evidence. They are two sides of the same coin as to the competency of criminal evidence. The theoretical bases of exclusionary rules and remedial rules are interlinked in a deep level, but from different angles. Remedy of criminal evidence has multiple meanings. Its essence is proving the competency of evidence, which is a process of explaining and demonstrating why the evidence is competent to prove the facts of a case. Therefore, redressing evidentiary defects on reliability and relevance, which is based on the great demand of “seeking the truth”, can be called “positive remedy”, also known as “functional remedy”. The sole purpose of excluding relevant evidence is to implement public policy.When the purpose of “public policy” fails, the evidence should be admitted. Such remedy is called “negative remedy”, also known as “ethical remedy”. The remedies of criminal evidence include correction, reasonable explanation, remaking of evidence, mutual verification or corroboration. Correction is the remedy for the nonsubstantive defect. Remaking of evidence is the remedy for the substance defect. Reasonable explanation is the remedy for the legality defect. Mutual verification or corroboration aims to remedy the defect in the weight of evidence.