作者：佀化强
作者介绍：重庆大学法学院特聘研究员，博士生导师
出版日期：2015年12月9日
内容提要 受基督教“血罪”观念影响，中世纪及近代普通法法院的英国法官与欧洲 大陆的刑事法官一样，往往为了避免地狱之灾而遵循“规则依赖”的行为逻辑，“依证据裁 判”而不是“依良心或确信的真相裁判”。当下中国的法官，在遇有压力和涉及到职业风险 的案件中，也往往遵循“规则依赖”、“机构依赖”和“制度依赖”的行为逻辑进行裁判，这不 仅造成人为的错案，还导致审委会制度、上诉制度扭曲。十八大以来实施的司法改革措施， 有助于克服和消解法官的“依赖惰性”。但是，三大诉讼中大量的证明力规则和最高人民 法院近期制定的《关于完善人民法院司法责任制的若干意见》的两个条款，不仅构成了“谁 裁判谁负责”的制度性障碍，还可能让法官重回“规则依赖”的旧途。因此，废止或改造证 明力规则、修改司法责任制中的相关条款就成为当务之急。
关键词 证据裁判主义 自由心证 司法责任 证明力规则
Abstract: Under the influence of bloody guilty，the English civil judges in middle ages and modern times，like their Continental criminal counterparts，following Ｒule Dependence， avoided fact-finding by giving verdicts according grimly to the evidence instead of to his conscience． By the same token the judges in modern China，like the historical judge in west， under the great secular pressure or being exposed to the career risks，followed Ｒule Dependence，Organization Dependence and Institution Dependence， thus causing the miscarriage of justice and the distortion of the China Judicial Committee and of the appeal． The judicial reform after the Eighteenth National Congress of the Communist Party of China contributed to overcoming and dispelling the Dependence inertia of the judges，but the reliability rules of evidence in civil procedural law，criminal procedural law and administrative procedural law，as well as the two items in judicial responsibility，became obstacles and made the judges return to the Ｒule Dependence． So it is necessary to abolish or reform the reliability rules of evidence and the relevant items in judicial responsibility．