Contents
论在我们公安执法中如何保障证据合法性
一、目前我们公安执法中收集、使用证据方面存在的问题
（一）取证时间不够及时。
部分公安民警由于其自身业务水平以及工作态度等方面的问题，在执法过程中没有及时收集相关证据，需要日后再次收集。而对于一些容易灭失的证据，当时没有及时收集，日后就难以收集。如果灭失的证据对案件的定案起到决定性的作用，就使案件难以定性，不法分子无法得到有效地打击。
（二）取证手段相对落后。
随着时代不断发展，媒体对公安机关的关注度逐渐提高，许多公安机关的侦查手段被大众所知晓，狡猾的不法分子针对公安机关侦查取证的手段采取了许多反侦察的办法，而公安机关的侦查取证手段没有明显的改进，致使侦查取证手段落后于打击违法犯罪的需要。
（三）证据合法性难以保障。
虽然不论是相关法律还是公安部内部规定，都三申五令取证手段必须合法，要保障证据的合法性，但在实际工作中证据的合法性仍然不能得到有效的保障，刑讯逼供、单人取证、弄虚作假等问题仍时有发生。
二、现阶段我国公安执法中收集、使用证据存在问题的原因
（一）法律法规的制定与实际工作脱节
我国公安机关在执法过程中主要使用的法律有《中华人民共和国刑法》、《中华人民共和国刑事诉讼法》、《中华人民共和国行政诉讼法》等，大部分法律制定的时间较早，虽然一直在不断修订中，但理论的法条与实际执法过程还是有相当程度的脱节，实际可操作性不强，也给一线民警在执法时造成相当的困惑。
（二）部分公安民警执法水平和责任心不够
公安民警中有相当一部分不是来源对口专业，其本身对公安业务并不熟悉，同时由于公安工作一直很繁忙，特别是一些基层的公安民警，根本没有足够的时间学习业务知识，导致相当一部分公安民警的业务水平无法适应现阶段执法要求的需要。
（三）技术层面对基层公安工作支持力度不够
虽然现在公安机关也配备了许多先进的科学手段帮助侦查，但这些先进的侦查手段对于基层公安来说是那么的“渴望而不可及”。技术层面的支持少，致使许多案件无法形成有效的证据链，只能通过犯罪分子的口供来定案。这就使一些侦查员在办案时采取了过激的方式，甚至是刑讯逼供。
三、保障公安执法中收集、使用证据合法性的措施
《刑事诉讼法》第43条的规定：“审判人员、检察人员、侦查人员必须依照法定程序，收集能够证实犯罪嫌疑人、被告人有罪或者无罪、犯罪情节轻重的各种证据。”这是法律对于收集证据的总的原则。具体的要求有以下几个方面：
（一）严格依照法定的程序进行
刑事诉讼中的证据，是证明案情事实和确定当事人刑事责任的依据，因此，在刑事诉讼中收集证据，具有严肃的法律意义。只有依照法定程序收集的证据，才能成为刑事诉讼中的有效证据。反之，凡是违反法定程序所收集的证据材料，不得作为认定案件事实的证据。所谓“依法收集证据”，是指收集证据的主体必须合法；证据的表现形式必须合法，取证的方法也必须合法。
（二）收集证据要主动及时
所谓主动、及时是指案件发生后，侦查人员赶赴现场要快，立即着手收集证据，快速进行深入调查，以免失去收集证据的机会。同刑事犯罪的斗争是一场异常复杂的斗争，如同军事斗争一样，“兵贵神速”。当一起刑事案件发生后，如果侦查人员能够迅速赶赴现场，进行认真的勘验、检查，就可能提取到较多的犯罪痕迹和其他物证，或者找到有关的证人、被害人，了解到较为准确的证词。相反，拖延时间则可能失去战机，使以后的侦查破案遇到更大的困难。
（三）收集证据要客观全面
所谓“客观”，就是在收集证据时，从客观实际情况出发，收集客观存在的证据材料，既不能用主观猜想代替客观事实，也不能按主观需要去收集证据，更不能弄虚作假去伪造证据。所谓“全面”，就是要从不同的角度去收集能证明所有案件事实要素的证据，既不能只收集支持某事实主张的证据，也不能只收集证明案件主要事实的证据。要注意收集两而的事实，反对先人为主，片面取证。
（四）收集证据要深入细致
所谓“深入”，就是要亲自进入现场和知情群众中进行勘验、检查和调查，不能仅靠他人提供的材料和转述的情况。有些犯罪现场，还须多次进行勘验，对被害人和知情人，要耐心作好想工作，启发他们说出案情的真相。所谓“细致”，就是要求办案人员在侦查或者调查中，务必特别认真、仔细，不能放过任何一件细小的、不引人注目的、似乎微不足道的物品或痕迹。
（五）收集证据应充分运用科学技术手段
现代社会是高科技日新月异飞速发展的社会，犯罪手段也在不断发展变化，出现了许多利用高科技实施的“智能型”犯罪。刑事照相学、痕迹学、指纹学、声纹学、笔迹学、毒物化学、法医学等等，在与刑事犯罪作斗争中正发挥着愈来愈大的作用，而DNA技术和基因技术等现代科技手段，更是能够帮助侦查人员发现和收集证据。
赣县公安局法制大队 黄丽华
二0一二年十二月八日
相关图书
本文链接
英文机翻
On How to Guarantee the Legitimacy of Evidence in Our Public Security Law Enforcement
- The current problems in the collection and use of evidence in our public security law enforcement
(1) The evidence collection time is not timely enough.
Due to their own professional level and work attitude, some public security police failed to collect relevant evidence in time during the law enforcement process and needed to collect it again in the future. As for some easily lost evidence, if it was not collected in time, it will be difficult to collect in the future. If the lost evidence plays a decisive role in the finalization of the case, it will make it difficult to characterize the case, and criminals cannot be effectively attacked.
(2) The methods of obtaining evidence are relatively backward.
With the continuous development of the times, the media’s attention to public security organs has gradually increased. Many public security organs’ investigative methods have become known to the public. The means of investigation and evidence collection have not been significantly improved, resulting in the means of investigation and evidence collection lagging behind the needs of combating crimes.
(3) It is difficult to guarantee the legality of evidence.
Although both the relevant laws and the internal regulations of the Ministry of Public Security stipulate that the means of obtaining evidence repeatedly must be legal and the legality of evidence must be guaranteed, but in actual work, the legality of evidence cannot be effectively guaranteed. , Fraud and other issues still occur from time to time.
- The reasons for the problems in the collection and use of evidence in the public security law enforcement in my country at the present stage
(1) The formulation of laws and regulations is out of touch with actual work
The laws mainly used by public security organs in the process of law enforcement in our country include the “Criminal Law of the People’s Republic of China”, “Criminal Procedure Law of the People’s Republic of China”, “Administrative Procedure Law of the People’s Republic of China”, etc. Most of the laws were formulated earlier, although they have been It is constantly being revised, but the theoretical law is still quite out of touch with the actual law enforcement process, and the actual operability is not strong, which also caused considerable confusion to the front-line police when law enforcement.
(2) Some policemen’s level of law enforcement and sense of responsibility are not enough
A considerable part of the public security police is not the source of the corresponding professional, and they are not familiar with the public security business. At the same time, because the public security work has been very busy, especially some grassroots public security police, there is not enough time to learn business knowledge, resulting in a considerable number of public security police. The business level cannot meet the needs of law enforcement requirements at this stage.
(3) Insufficient technical support for grassroots public security work
Although the public security organs are now equipped with many advanced scientific methods to assist in the investigation, these advanced investigation methods are so “desired and out of reach” for the grassroots public security. The lack of support at the technical level has resulted in many cases being unable to form an effective chain of evidence, and the case can only be settled through the confession of criminals. This has led some investigators to adopt extreme methods when handling cases, even extorting confessions by torture.
III. Measures to Guarantee the Legitimacy of Evidence Collection and Use in Public Security Law Enforcement
Article 43 of the “Criminal Procedure Law” stipulates: “The judges, prosecutors, and investigators must follow legal procedures to collect various evidences that can prove the guilt or innocence of the criminal suspect or the defendant, and the seriousness of the crime.” This is General principles of law for the collection of evidence. The specific requirements are as follows:
(1) Strictly follow the statutory procedures
Evidence in criminal proceedings is the basis for proving the facts of the case and determining the criminal responsibility of the parties. Therefore, collecting evidence in criminal proceedings has serious legal significance. Only evidence collected in accordance with legal procedures can become effective evidence in criminal proceedings. Conversely, any evidentiary materials collected in violation of legal procedures shall not be used as evidence for ascertaining the facts of the case. The so-called “collecting evidence according to the law” means that the subject of collecting evidence must be legal; the form of evidence must be legal, and the method of obtaining evidence must also be legal.
(2) The collection of evidence must be proactive and timely
The so-called initiative and timely means that after the case occurs, the investigators must rush to the scene quickly, start collecting evidence immediately, and conduct in-depth investigation quickly, so as not to lose the opportunity to collect evidence. The fight against criminal offenses is an extremely complex struggle, just like military struggles, “soldiers are expensive and fast.” When a criminal case occurs, if the investigators can quickly rush to the scene and conduct serious inspections and inspections, they may extract more criminal traces and other physical evidence, or find relevant witnesses and victims, and learn more accurate testimony . On the contrary, delaying the time may lose the fighter opportunity, making the subsequent investigation and solving the case more difficult.
(3) The collection of evidence must be objective and comprehensive
The so-called “objective” means that when collecting evidence, proceed from the objective reality and collect objectively existing evidence materials. You can neither use subjective conjectures to replace objective facts, nor can you collect evidence according to subjective needs, let alone falsify evidence. The so-called “comprehensive” means to collect evidence that can prove all the factual elements of the case from different angles, neither only collecting evidence supporting a certain factual claim, nor only collecting evidence that proves the main facts of the case. We should pay attention to collecting two facts, and oppose prioritization and one-sided evidence collection.
(4) The collection of evidence must be in-depth and meticulous
The so-called “in-depth” means to personally enter the scene and conduct inspections, inspections and investigations among the people who know the facts, and cannot rely solely on the materials provided by others and the situation reported. Some crime scenes still need to be inspected many times. For the victims and insiders, it is necessary to do a good job of thinking patiently and inspire them to tell the truth of the case. The so-called “meticulousness” is to require the investigators to be particularly serious and careful during the investigation or investigation, and not to let go of any small, unobtrusive, or seemingly insignificant items or traces.
(5) The collection of evidence should make full use of scientific and technological means
Modern society is a society where high technology is changing rapidly, and the means of crime are also constantly changing. Many “intelligent” crimes using high technology have emerged. Criminal photography, trace science, fingerprint science, voiceprint science, handwriting science, poison chemistry, forensic science, etc. are playing an increasingly important role in the fight against criminal crimes, while DNA technology and gene technology and other modern scientific and technological means , but also to help investigators discover and collect evidence.
Huang Lihua, Legal Team, Gan County Public Security Bureau
December 8, 2012