神示证据制度、法定证据制度和自由心证的证据制度虽然在事实发现能力上有很大的差异,但它们都是以发现案件的客观事实为目标的,并且在绝大多数案件中,它们所认定的法律事实都能贴近案件的客观事实。但由于受认识手段的影响以及为了限制法官恣意和保护人权等多种原因,法律事实与客观事实经常发生背离。我国证据制度忽视了对法官主观随意性的限制和对人权的保护,应当予以矫正。 Although the system of evidential evidence, statutory evidence and the system of evidence of free testimony varies greatly in the ability to discover facts, they are all based on the objective facts of the discovery of the case, and in the vast majority of cases, The legal facts that are affirmed can be close to the objective facts of the case. However, due to the influence of the means of knowing as well as various reasons such as restricting judges’ wantonness and protecting human rights, the factual fact and objective fact often deviate. The system of evidence in our country neglects the restrictions on the subjective arbitrariness of judges and the protection of human rights and should be rectified.