摘要
在认识论上,只存在客观事实与客观真理,不存在主观事实与主观真理。但在判断真理与事实的真实性上,却存在着客观真实与主观真实两种不同标准。客观真实的标准适用于对现存事实真实性的判断,主观真实的标准适用于对已逝事实真实性的判断。犯罪事实都是已逝的事实,因而不可能适用客观真实的标准。“法律真实说”指出了“客观真实说”的缺陷,意义重大,但它只指出了刑事诉讼证明标准的“行业”属性,并不是对刑事诉讼证明标准的准确概括。只有“主观真实说”符合刑事诉讼证明标准的本质属性。主观不等于主观主义,主观真实也不是主观臆断,它具有坚实的客观性基础。承认这一事实,并依照自由心证的特点完善我国的刑事证据规则,不仅不会导致主观主义,相反更有利于防止主观主义。
In epistemology, there are no subjective facts or subjective truths, but only objective facts and objective truths. However, there are objective and subjective criteria in judging the ＂truthfulness＂ of truths or facts. The former applies to facts in the present time while the latter applies to facts in the past time. The objective criteria could not be applied to criminal facts because they are facts in the past time. The doctrine of legal truth is of great significance because it reveals the defects in the doctrine of objective truth. On the other hand, it is not a precise summarization of the criteria of proof in criminal procedure. Only the doctrine of subjective truth is compatible with the nature of the criteria of proof in criminal procedure. Subjective truth is not equal to subjective and groundless conclusion, but is based on sound objective basis. Reforming the rules of criminal evidence according to the doctrine of discretional evaluation of evidence will not lead to, but, on the contrary, will contribute to the prevention of, subjectivism.
出处
《环球法律评论》
北大核心
2007年第3期44-53,共10页
Global Law Review
