| Summary: | 碩士 === 東吳大學 === 法律學系 === 104 === After the promulgation of the Code of Criminal Procedure article 158-4 since 1992, the evidence exclusionary rule has been implemented to achieve the purposes of the Code of Criminal Procedure by balancing the protection of human rights and the preservation of public interests. With the stronger monocracy understanding development year by year, the community can also accept the prescribed concept and the purpose of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Evidences have no evidence admissibility due to it is obtained in violation of legal procedure by an official in execution of criminal procedure. It should be excluded in jurisdiction, either.
However, the prescribed procedure is only applicable to the cases when officials’ violation of the criminal procedure which is based on the wording of the Code of Criminal Procedure article 158-4. There is no clear rule to the evidence illegally obtained by private persons. It causes confusion how to follow the code of criminal procedure. People wonder why the judgments of similar crime cases are different just because who obtain evidences. Especially in some cases, private persons or parties’ resource or ability are not less than the government. This raise a question that is still proper to decide evidence exclusionary rule applicability based on the evidences obtained by official or private parties.
By researching, understanding and comparing theories of the evidence exclusionary rule, other counties court practices, our evidence exclusionary rule and court practice development, this paper tries to conclude the reason why the Code of Criminal Procedure leaves the admissibility of evidence illegally obtained by private person in blank. It also tries to make some recommends to the future direction
|
|---|
