侦查认识论研究存在的偏差与修正
|
摘要
侦查认识论是侦查哲学基础理论的核心,也是侦查学基础理论研究的逻辑起点。传统的侦查认识论研究虽然深刻认识到了侦查活动的本质是一种认识活动,也较为深入地论证了马克思主义相关哲学基本原理对侦查认识活动的重要指导意义,但依然存在较大偏差,根源就在于侦查认识论研究脱离侦查实践,归结起来有三个典型表现:一是政治色彩过浓而忽视侦查认识活动的法律属性,二是侦查认识论问题域狭隘而忽视对侦查认识工具的研究,三是侦查认识论研究违背了认识与实践相统一的原理。针对此突出问题,应将马克思辩证唯物主义认识论与侦查实践有机结合,通过建立多元侦查价值体系,并从重视被追诉人的权利保障、重视侦查认识工具的实践价值和加强侦查辩证法研究等方面予以修正。
Investigation epistemology is the core of basic theories of investigation philosophy and the logical starting point of basic theories of investigation.In traditional researches of investigation epistemology,the fact that the nature of investigation activity is a kind of cognitive activities is deeply recognized and the important guiding significance in investigation awareness activities played by the basic principle of Marxism philosophy is fully demonstrated.However,there is still a large deviation because the researches of investigation epistemology are apart from practice,which can be summarized into three typical points:Firstly,the legal attribute of investigation awareness activities has been ignored for too thick political color;Secondly,the researches of investigation cognitive tools have been ignored for the narrow understanding of investigation epistemology;Thirdly,researches of investigation epistemology have violated the principle of unity of knowledge and practice.In view of this prominent problem,we should organically combine the Marxist dialectical materialism epistemology with the investigation practice,establish the multiple value system of investigation,and correct it from the aspects of paying attention to the protection of the rights of the accused,paying attention to the practical value of investigation cognitive tools and strengthening the investigation dialectic researches.
Investigation epistemology is the core of basic theories of investigation philosophy and the logical starting point of basic theories of investigation.In traditional researches of investigation epistemology,the fact that the nature of investigation activity is a kind of cognitive activities is deeply recognized and the important guiding significance in investigation awareness activities played by the basic principle of Marxism philosophy is fully demonstrated.However,there is still a large deviation because the researches of investigation epistemology are apart from practice,which can be summarized into three typical points:Firstly,the legal attribute of investigation awareness activities has been ignored for too thick political color;Secondly,the researches of investigation cognitive tools have been ignored for the narrow understanding of investigation epistemology;Thirdly,researches of investigation epistemology have violated the principle of unity of knowledge and practice.In view of this prominent problem,we should organically combine the Marxist dialectical materialism epistemology with the investigation practice,establish the multiple value system of investigation,and correct it from the aspects of paying attention to the protection of the rights of the accused,paying attention to the practical value of investigation cognitive tools and strengthening the investigation dialectic researches.
引文
[1]杨宗辉.侦查学总论[M].北京:中国检察出版社,2017. 82.
[2]何家弘.新编犯罪侦查学[M].北京:中国法制出版社,2007. 71.
[3]陈浩铨.刑事诉讼法哲学[M].北京:法律出版社,2008. 102.
[4]谢佑平,万毅.刑事侦查制度原理[M].北京:中国人民公安大学出版社,2003. 249.
[5]胡义成.斯大林和毛泽东哲学认识论比较研究[J].毛泽东思想研究,1986,(1):73-78.
[6][16]王传道.刑事侦查学[M].北京:中国政法大学出版社,2017. 21. 25.
[7]列宁.哲学笔记[M].中共中央马克思恩格斯列宁斯大林著作编译局,译.北京:人民出版社,1998. 144.
[8]任惠华.侦查学原理[M].北京:法律出版社,2012. 21.
[9]中共中央关于全面推进依法治国若干重大问题的决定[N].人民日报,2014-10-29(01).
[10]陈卫东.以审判为中心:当代中国刑事司法改革的基点[J].法学家,2016,(04):1-15,175.
[11]李学宽,汪海燕,张小玲.论刑事证明标准及其层次性[J].中国法学,2001,(5):125-136.
[12]徐为霞.侦查学原理[M].北京:中国民主法制出版社,2007. 27.
[13]杨立云.侦查认识论原理研究[M].北京:群众出版社,2009. 29.
[14]张妮,杨遂全,蒲亦非.国外人工智能与法律研究进展述评[J].法律方法,2014,(2):458-480.
[15]管晓东.侦查认知刍论[J].山东警察学院学报,2006,(5):65-68.
(1)我国法律规定的侦查主体是侦查机关,而哲学中认识的主体只能是自然意义上的人。为避免歧义,本文在谈及侦查认识主体时,不对侦查机关和侦查人员进行区分。
(1)关于侦查认识结果的真假标准,我国侦查学界主要有“符合论”、“融贯论”、“有效论”、“一致论”等观点,我国目前的侦查实践所应用的主要是“符合论”。对侦查认识论结果真假标准的研究可详见有关文献:杨立云.侦查认识论的困难及其克服---侦查认识之真理论的完善[D].西南政法大学2005年硕士毕业论文;郭冰.侦查学基础理论研究[M].北京:中国人民公安大学出版社,2010.114-116;等等。
(1)侦查权的本质更加倾向于行政权还是司法权,学界未达成一致意见,但对侦查活动具有一定的司法属性的看法是统一的。
(1)我国侦查认识真理论的核心是“主观符合客观”,这种“符合说”之所以一定程度上误导了侦查实践,真正的原因在于学者们曲解了“符合说”的真实含义,以往的研究没有深入解读“符合说”的特点,而这种“符合说”本身则是合理的---特别是运用到司法认知中。对此,杨立云有较为深入细致的分析。具体参见杨立云.侦查认识论的困难及其克服[D].西南政法大学2005年硕士学位论文.
[2]何家弘.新编犯罪侦查学[M].北京:中国法制出版社,2007. 71.
[3]陈浩铨.刑事诉讼法哲学[M].北京:法律出版社,2008. 102.
[4]谢佑平,万毅.刑事侦查制度原理[M].北京:中国人民公安大学出版社,2003. 249.
[5]胡义成.斯大林和毛泽东哲学认识论比较研究[J].毛泽东思想研究,1986,(1):73-78.
[6][16]王传道.刑事侦查学[M].北京:中国政法大学出版社,2017. 21. 25.
[7]列宁.哲学笔记[M].中共中央马克思恩格斯列宁斯大林著作编译局,译.北京:人民出版社,1998. 144.
[8]任惠华.侦查学原理[M].北京:法律出版社,2012. 21.
[9]中共中央关于全面推进依法治国若干重大问题的决定[N].人民日报,2014-10-29(01).
[10]陈卫东.以审判为中心:当代中国刑事司法改革的基点[J].法学家,2016,(04):1-15,175.
[11]李学宽,汪海燕,张小玲.论刑事证明标准及其层次性[J].中国法学,2001,(5):125-136.
[12]徐为霞.侦查学原理[M].北京:中国民主法制出版社,2007. 27.
[13]杨立云.侦查认识论原理研究[M].北京:群众出版社,2009. 29.
[14]张妮,杨遂全,蒲亦非.国外人工智能与法律研究进展述评[J].法律方法,2014,(2):458-480.
[15]管晓东.侦查认知刍论[J].山东警察学院学报,2006,(5):65-68.
(1)我国法律规定的侦查主体是侦查机关,而哲学中认识的主体只能是自然意义上的人。为避免歧义,本文在谈及侦查认识主体时,不对侦查机关和侦查人员进行区分。
(1)关于侦查认识结果的真假标准,我国侦查学界主要有“符合论”、“融贯论”、“有效论”、“一致论”等观点,我国目前的侦查实践所应用的主要是“符合论”。对侦查认识论结果真假标准的研究可详见有关文献:杨立云.侦查认识论的困难及其克服---侦查认识之真理论的完善[D].西南政法大学2005年硕士毕业论文;郭冰.侦查学基础理论研究[M].北京:中国人民公安大学出版社,2010.114-116;等等。
(1)侦查权的本质更加倾向于行政权还是司法权,学界未达成一致意见,但对侦查活动具有一定的司法属性的看法是统一的。
(1)我国侦查认识真理论的核心是“主观符合客观”,这种“符合说”之所以一定程度上误导了侦查实践,真正的原因在于学者们曲解了“符合说”的真实含义,以往的研究没有深入解读“符合说”的特点,而这种“符合说”本身则是合理的---特别是运用到司法认知中。对此,杨立云有较为深入细致的分析。具体参见杨立云.侦查认识论的困难及其克服[D].西南政法大学2005年硕士学位论文.