| The evidence is the basis,core and soul of the litigation. All cases are launched around the evidence and need the evidence to make a verdict .The choice of illegal evidence is unable to avoid but difficult with issue of choice to various countries criminal legislation, especially administration of justice. Our country has not yet stipulated exclusion rule of the illegal evidence, but there are relevant extensive clauses alone, and there are more rational factors. In view of this, I analyze to legislative practices of various countries and combine our country's conditions, then have put forward my own view, not still very overall.I think the illegal evidence is only such evidence that violates the legal provisions during the process of collecting the evidence that pointed and have infringed the lawful rights of the defendant, injured party. Comparing and analyzing the legislation of the main countries of two fundamental laws and principles department, I find there are different characters in the legislation of illegal evidence stipulates. One is that all countries generally think the deposition made illegally is not endowed the evidence effect. But with constant development of theoretical foundation, some countries has eliminated the illegal deposition according to from reliability to violating legal procedure and have established the principle of eliminating automatically. Second, various countries stipulate differently to material evidence, documented evidence that are acquired illegally, some think they are not provided with legal effect in principle, but except the exceptional regulation, such as U.S.A. Some have not stipulated clearly, but give a judge the jurisdiction freely, such as Britain. There are some countries that have not stipulated to eliminating the effect of the material evidence yet, but getting rid of the specific material evidence, documented evidence in practice. And some countries that have already excluded from the material evidence are narrowing range and demonstrating the greatest coordination on the two of controlling crime and ensuring human rights.exclusionary rule of illegal evidence can be established and develop in modern democratic states because of it's valuable foundation, namely ensuring human rights and procedure justice. Though the exclusionary rule of illegal evidence is proper, it have produced contradiction of human rights and punishing crimes, the justice of the procedure and entity's justice, among lawsuit benefit too. How to balance their contradiction, or how to choose in these value conflicts, there is no an absolute, unalterable standard in various countries. So there are different legislation and practice of the eliminating rule of illegal evidence in different country or during different period of one country. This is situated in the legal cultural tradition ,social crime states , criminal policies and criminal suit purpose , judicial resource states of different periods of different country or the same country. So, confirming the rule must combine national reality, leave the concrete national conditions to discuss to be nonsensical. The exclusionary rule of illegal words evidence that the our court and procuratorate stipulate on the judicial aspect become starting point and symbol that the system of evidence of our country moves towards the maturity and perfection. Theory circles and practice department have all made positive and definite appraisal on it. But we must see, the exclusionary rule of illegal evidence has obvious defects at present, it is the announce of sense of principle and does not have other lawsuit evidence rules to support that reduces its efficiency, lack effectiveness and substantial results, make getting rid of regular symbolic meaning greater than essence utility, cause the behavior of collecting evidence illegally in the judicial practice to remain incessant after repeated prohibition Synthesizing the above view, I think it is very urgent to establish our country's getting rid of the rule of illegal evidence.
|
PDF Full Text Request