刑事司法证据的分量

Q3 Arts and Humanities
M. Shumylo, Valery P. Gmyrko, Vladyslav Rudei
{"title":"刑事司法证据的分量","authors":"M. Shumylo, Valery P. Gmyrko, Vladyslav Rudei","doi":"10.37635/jnalsu.28(4).2021.279-288","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"The study is devoted to the current issue of the weight of criminal judicial evidence, which is understudied in the national doctrine. The legislator, having introduced this evaluative concept in 2012 (Paragraph 1, Part 11, Article 1 of 178 CCP), did not provide its normative definition. As a result, there is a conceptual uncertainty, which is inappropriate given the requirements of the rule of law (Article 8 of the Constitution of Ukraine, Article 8 of the CCP). Therefore, the purpose of study is to attempt to formulate a definition of the “weight of evidence”, to propose a scheme of work of a lawyer to determine the signs of this activity phenomenon in situations of making appropriate procedural decisions. The study is based on the activity methodology using a number of special methods – search and bibliographic; semantic; Aristotelian; hermeneutic; historical-legal; comparative-legal; functional analysis; generalisation. The study formulated the definition of the “weight of evidence” as an activity characteristic. The latter is the result of a pragmatic logical and legal evaluation of ad hoc evidence within its totality. Thus, certain evidence is prioritised due to the greater suitability attributed to it by the lawyer to serve as a convincing evidence base of the procedural decision. Therefore, the conclusion is substantiated that the “weight of available evidence” as its activity characteristic is “the fifth element” of the structure of “criminal judicial evidence” along with such characteristics as “credibility”, “admissibility”, “reliability”, and “sufficiency”. The study includes conclusion that the introduction by the legislator in 2012 of the “weight of available evidence” meets the requirements of the evidentiary practice of the modern national adversarial process and the ECHR","PeriodicalId":36101,"journal":{"name":"Journal of the National Academy of Legal Sciences of Ukraine","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2021-12-23","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"The weight of criminal judicial evidence\",\"authors\":\"M. Shumylo, Valery P. Gmyrko, Vladyslav Rudei\",\"doi\":\"10.37635/jnalsu.28(4).2021.279-288\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"The study is devoted to the current issue of the weight of criminal judicial evidence, which is understudied in the national doctrine. The legislator, having introduced this evaluative concept in 2012 (Paragraph 1, Part 11, Article 1 of 178 CCP), did not provide its normative definition. As a result, there is a conceptual uncertainty, which is inappropriate given the requirements of the rule of law (Article 8 of the Constitution of Ukraine, Article 8 of the CCP). Therefore, the purpose of study is to attempt to formulate a definition of the “weight of evidence”, to propose a scheme of work of a lawyer to determine the signs of this activity phenomenon in situations of making appropriate procedural decisions. The study is based on the activity methodology using a number of special methods – search and bibliographic; semantic; Aristotelian; hermeneutic; historical-legal; comparative-legal; functional analysis; generalisation. The study formulated the definition of the “weight of evidence” as an activity characteristic. The latter is the result of a pragmatic logical and legal evaluation of ad hoc evidence within its totality. Thus, certain evidence is prioritised due to the greater suitability attributed to it by the lawyer to serve as a convincing evidence base of the procedural decision. Therefore, the conclusion is substantiated that the “weight of available evidence” as its activity characteristic is “the fifth element” of the structure of “criminal judicial evidence” along with such characteristics as “credibility”, “admissibility”, “reliability”, and “sufficiency”. The study includes conclusion that the introduction by the legislator in 2012 of the “weight of available evidence” meets the requirements of the evidentiary practice of the modern national adversarial process and the ECHR\",\"PeriodicalId\":36101,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of the National Academy of Legal Sciences of Ukraine\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2021-12-23\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of the National Academy of Legal Sciences of Ukraine\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.37635/jnalsu.28(4).2021.279-288\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"Arts and Humanities\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of the National Academy of Legal Sciences of Ukraine","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.37635/jnalsu.28(4).2021.279-288","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"Arts and Humanities","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

本研究致力于解决目前国家学说中对刑事司法证据权重研究不足的问题。立法者在2012年引入了这一评估概念(《CCP》178第1条第11部分第1款),但没有提供其规范性定义。因此,存在概念上的不确定性,鉴于法治的要求(《乌克兰宪法》第8条,《中国共产党》第8条款),这是不合适的。因此,本研究的目的是试图制定“证据权重”的定义,提出律师的工作方案,以确定在做出适当程序决定的情况下这种活动现象的迹象。该研究以活动方法论为基础,使用了许多特殊方法——搜索和书目;语义;亚里士多德的解释学;历史法律;比较法学;功能分析;概括。该研究将“证据权重”定义为一种活动特征。后者是在总体上对特设证据进行务实的逻辑和法律评估的结果。因此,某些证据被优先考虑,因为律师认为它更适合作为程序决定的令人信服的证据基础。因此,“可得证据权重”作为其活动特征,是“刑事司法证据”结构的“第五要素”,具有“可信性”、“可采性”、“可靠性”、“充分性”等特征。该研究得出的结论是,立法者在2012年引入的“可用证据的权重”符合现代国家对抗程序的证据实践和《欧洲人权公约》的要求
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
The weight of criminal judicial evidence
The study is devoted to the current issue of the weight of criminal judicial evidence, which is understudied in the national doctrine. The legislator, having introduced this evaluative concept in 2012 (Paragraph 1, Part 11, Article 1 of 178 CCP), did not provide its normative definition. As a result, there is a conceptual uncertainty, which is inappropriate given the requirements of the rule of law (Article 8 of the Constitution of Ukraine, Article 8 of the CCP). Therefore, the purpose of study is to attempt to formulate a definition of the “weight of evidence”, to propose a scheme of work of a lawyer to determine the signs of this activity phenomenon in situations of making appropriate procedural decisions. The study is based on the activity methodology using a number of special methods – search and bibliographic; semantic; Aristotelian; hermeneutic; historical-legal; comparative-legal; functional analysis; generalisation. The study formulated the definition of the “weight of evidence” as an activity characteristic. The latter is the result of a pragmatic logical and legal evaluation of ad hoc evidence within its totality. Thus, certain evidence is prioritised due to the greater suitability attributed to it by the lawyer to serve as a convincing evidence base of the procedural decision. Therefore, the conclusion is substantiated that the “weight of available evidence” as its activity characteristic is “the fifth element” of the structure of “criminal judicial evidence” along with such characteristics as “credibility”, “admissibility”, “reliability”, and “sufficiency”. The study includes conclusion that the introduction by the legislator in 2012 of the “weight of available evidence” meets the requirements of the evidentiary practice of the modern national adversarial process and the ECHR
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
15
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信