事后道歉证据的证明逻辑——以长崎事件为例

The Proof Logic of the Evidence of Ex Post Apology:Take the Nagasaki Incident as an Example

被告人“道歉”,或者出于认罪被归为自白,或者出于礼貌、同情等其他理由被归为辩解。这两种解释相互矛盾,但都是用于直接证明案件主要事实的实质证据。道歉、提出和解等言语和行为,可以补强这种真实性可疑的作为主要证据的受害人控告犯罪之陈述,并进而间接推论案件事实,但是这种补强证据本身有时需要进一步的补强或者允许反证,其在程序法上可以达到转移举证责任的效果。从经验科学而言,以这类道歉、提议和解、采取事后补救措施等证据对案件事实进行的推论,是以或然性概括为大前提的设证推理,其结论是似真的,具有可辩驳性。从价值科学而言,这类证据的使用还需要法官在坚守无罪推定原则、排除合理怀疑证明标准的基础上,切实保持个人自由和社会防卫之间审慎平衡。

The defendant's"apology"is either classified as a confession out of pleading guilty,or is classified as a defense out of politeness,sympathy and other reasons.These two explanations contradict each other,but they are both used to directly prove the main facts of the case as substantive evidence;and the words and actions such as apologizing,proposing reconciliation,etc.,can be used to reinforce the main evidence of the victim's suspicious statement as to an accusation of a crime,and then indirectly infer the facts of the case,but this corroborating evidence itself sometimes needs to be further reinforced or allowed to rebut,which can achieve the effect of shifting the burden of proof in procedural law.From the perspective of empirical science,inferences on the facts of the case based on evidence such as apologies,proposals for settlement,and post-remedial measures are based on the premise of probabilistic generalization,and the conclusions are plausible and rebuttable.From the perspective of value science,the use of this type of evidence also requires judges to maintain a careful balance between personal freedom and social defense on the basis of adhering to the principle of presumption of innocence and the standard of proof beyond reasonable doubts.