论侦查讯问的程序性原则——兼论我国侦查讯问制度的完善

侦查讯问是刑事诉讼中的一项侦查措施,在实施过程中很容易侵犯犯罪嫌疑人的权利,因此,侦查讯问要遵循一定的原则,以制约国家公权力的不当行使。侦查讯问的程序性原则包括:禁止先行讯问原则、公开与秘密相结合原则、禁止刑讯逼供原则、讯问程序法定原则。我国现行的侦查讯问制度中,侦查人员与犯罪嫌疑人的权利配置严重失衡,存在许多问题和弊端,因而要加以改革和完善。     

论侦查讯问中律师帮助权的保障与完善

侦查讯问是侦查程序的重要环节。为了保障犯罪嫌疑人权利能够充分实现,就应完整、全面地落实律师帮助权。笔者从实践中的问题入手,提出了要对侦查阶段的律师明确其辩护人的地位,强化对侦查人员义务的规定,并对程序性违法行为进行司法裁判,并通过建立律师值班制度加强对犯罪嫌疑人权利的保护。     

新刑诉法影响下我国侦查讯问制度的探索和完善

人权保障已成为当今世界各国的共识,而犯罪嫌疑人的权利保障力度成了各国人权保障水平的标志。侦查阶段是刑事诉讼中人权保障最薄弱的一个环节,而侦查讯问中犯罪嫌疑人的权利更容易受到侵犯。对我国现行侦查讯问制度存在的问题及其原因进行分析,结合新刑事诉讼法修改的基本精神,建立和完善我国的侦查讯问制度,可以从根源上解决我国侦查讯问中犯罪嫌疑人的权利保障问题。     

侦查讯问权的正当性及其制约机制

侦查讯问在侦查活动中具有特殊的功效.基于权力立场设立的犯罪嫌疑人权利保障制度却在侦查实践中一直失败,而从权利的立场构建的遏制侦查讯问权滥用制度也在实践中总是失灵.在追问侦查讯问正当性过程中发现,只有分解侦查讯问权形成"权力对权力"的制约机制以及借助于犯罪嫌疑人"权利对权力"的抑制机制,才能使侦查讯问权得以正当地运行.     

对侦查讯问合法性、公正性的思考

侦查讯问的合法性,是指侦查讯问活动按照刑事诉讼法对侦查讯问的主体、讯问的方式、讯问的地点、讯问的顺序、讯问时应当保障的犯罪嫌疑人的权利的要求来开展;侦查讯问的公正性,是指侦查讯问的实体内容和讯问程序过程要体现公平、公道、合理、正义等价值目标。但我国现阶段的侦查讯问仍存在着不公正性的问题,要克服这种不公正性,可以确立有限沉默权的原则,完善立法,提高执法理念。     

侦查讯问制度研究

侦查讯问制度是以侦查讯问活动为调整对象的.由于侦查讯问活动只是获得犯罪嫌疑人陈述的手段,侦查讯问制度实质上是过程价值与结果价值冲突与平衡的产物.在现代刑事诉讼中,侦查讯问制度是以承认犯罪嫌疑人诉讼主体地位为前提的.因此,尽管各国仍十分重视犯罪嫌疑人陈述的积极价值,侦查讯问制度的构建却是以保障犯罪嫌疑人陈述的自愿性为核心的.我国现行侦查讯问制度中,侦查人员与犯罪嫌疑人的权利配置严重失衡,由此引发了许多问题.因而,对我国侦查讯问制度的改革完善应着眼于讯问过程中犯罪嫌疑人陈述自愿性的保障,并强化检察机关对侦查讯问活动的监督.     

侦查讯问犯罪嫌疑人的正当法律程序——以权利与权力的适度平衡为视角

作为一种重要的刑事侦查方法,讯问犯罪嫌疑人的行为直接反映诉讼程序的公正程度并最终影响诉讼结果的正当性。犯罪嫌疑人的主体尊严和人权保障的人道诉求,对侦查权力的理性运行寄予了最基本的期待。根据国际刑事司法准则的要求,赋予犯罪嫌疑人必要的知情权、反对自我归罪权、及时获得律师帮助权和免受酷刑是侦查讯问正当法律程序的底限公正基准。域外关于侦查讯问的正当法律程序成功范例以及我国侦查权力本位的程序运行经验教训表明,唯有以权利制约权力,才是防止侦查权力的滥用,保护涉讼公民基本人权的有效途径。让犯罪嫌疑人享有基本的防御权利,使个人权利和国家权力之间达到适度平衡,是我国侦查讯问正当法律程序的必然走向。     

认真对待侦查讯问——基于实证的考察

讯问中的高认罪率是封闭空间下长时间讯问的结果。侦查人员对犯罪嫌疑人认罪的追求反映了在客观证据获取能力不足的情况下侦查对讯问的依赖。讯问制度的改革从中短期考虑,应当平衡讯问查证功能与保障犯罪嫌疑人权利;从长期来考虑,应当在保障犯罪嫌疑人权利的前提之下开展讯问。     

贞查讯问与非法证据

侦查讯问犯罪嫌疑人的目的就是要获取口供。讯问权力的行使,在一定程度上使犯罪嫌疑人的权利相对遭到侵害,刑讯逼供等侵权行为便不断发生,形成非法证据。因此,加强对侦查讯问中非法证据形成途径的研究,并据此提出排除非法证据的措施,将有助于遏制侦查讯问中非法证据的形成。     

侦查阶段律师辩护问题研究——兼论修订后的《律师法》实施问题

律师辩护从审判阶段延伸到侦查阶段是历史的发展趋势。侦查阶段犯罪嫌疑人委托的律师身份应定位为辩护人,辩护内容包括实体性辩护和程序性辩护两个方面。其诉讼权利的配置应当考量收集证据、查获犯罪嫌疑人与人权保障之间的冲突和平衡。我国当前不仅应明确修订后《律师法》的效力,而且还要对侦查阶段律师会见权、通信权、调查取证权、申请调查取证权、讯问时在场权等规定作出相应的调整或改革。     

Constitutional protection of confessions made by mentally retarded defendants

Criminal confessions made in response to custodial questioning are excluded from evidence unless a defendant voluntarily, knowingly and intelligently waived his Miranda rights. In Connelly, the Supreme Court erred by holding that, absent explicit police coercion, a mentally ill individual's waiver is valid. The Court failed to consider the defendant's subjective impairments that might invalidate his waiver. By contrast, the Patterson Court suggested that a defendant's right to counsel may attach at an early stage in a criminal proceeding if the defendant has a significant need for counsel. This Note addresses the special needs of a mentally retarded person in the criminal justice system. The Note argues that mentally retarded suspects require careful explanation of Miranda rights in order to understand them. The intellectual and adaptive deficiencies which characterize mental retardation also necessitate an inquiry into a valid waiver that accounts for these disabilities. Furthermore, the special needs of the mentally retarded mandate that the right to counsel attach as early as the precustodial stage of an investigation. Early access to counsel most effectively assures that a mentally retarded person's waiver of constitutional rights is voluntary, knowing and intelligent.     

Interrogative Specialists and False Confessions: Debunking the Con Artist Myth

Within the criminal justice system, confessions are an extremely powerful form of evidence. Unfortunately, innocent people sometimes falsely confess to crimes they did not actually commit. Such travesties of justice have sparked a significant degree of academic research into the false confession phenomenon. Within the existing literature, there exists a conceptual framework that the interrogative methods and actions of law enforcement officers are a key cause of false confessions with some researchers going so far as to suggest that law enforcement interrogators act as confidence men who trick criminal subjects into confessing. However, few researchers have actually questioned law enforcement officers about false confessions and even fewer have consulted with officers who specialize in interrogation. This study is a subset of a larger qualitative case study designed to explore the experiences of 13 federal law enforcement polygraph examiners who specialize in interrogation regarding their approach to criminal interrogation and their experiences with both true and false confessions. This study focused on the personal processes federal law enforcement polygraph examiners use in reviewing Miranda rights and documenting confessions. NVivo software was used to organize the data. Common themes in interview responses were then identified and revealed that participants employ an open, detailed, and straightforward approach in reviewing Miranda rights and documenting the confessions of criminal subjects. These findings contradict the premise that law enforcement interrogators inherently operate as confidence men by tricking and manipulating criminal subjects.     

人权保障视野中讯问方法的合法运用

讯问犯罪嫌疑人作为收集证据的重要途径在其方法上受到人权保障原则的制约,讯问方法的运用因此不得不面临人权保障与发现案件事实真相的目标冲突。讯问合法性的实质标准在于保证犯罪嫌疑人供述的自愿性,但纯粹的、彻底的自愿供述不可能是讯问合法性的绝对标准。为兼顾人权保障与侦查效率,我们既要确立任何人不被强迫自证其罪的原则,也要鼓励犯罪嫌疑人如实供述,并允许运用可能对供述自愿性构成轻微损害的讯问方法。     

Patent Enforcement in Commonwealth Countries: A Comparative Analysis

The article addresses the legal basis of the circumstances surrounding the recording of confessions and how the circumstances may adversely impact on human rights. Recent examples of how the Courts have rejected confessions call for a fresh approach. Although most cases are resolved through confessions taken by the police, still there ought to be safeguards prior to such recording. It is suggested that the procedure which obtains in India would ensure that confessions are unchallengeable. At the end of the day what matters is that the criminal justice system does not become a licence by the police to undermine human rights.     

对刑讯逼供及其危害的思考

刑讯逼供是指司法工作人员对犯罪嫌疑人、被告人使用暴力逼取证人证言的行为。刑讯逼供不仅侵犯公民的人身权利,而且损害司法机关的形象,有悖于诉讼文明的司法民主的现代性要求。因此,对刑讯逼供的危害必须有清醒的认识,并给予足够的重视。     

Recent Supreme Court of Canada rulings on criminal defendants' right to counsel

The Supreme Court of Canada recently issued a trilogy of decisions pertaining to suspects' right to legal representation. These rulings further a major difference between the US and Canadian law: Canadian criminal suspects have far less access to legal counsel than suspects in the USA. This paper summarizes these decisions and draws comparisons between Canadian and the US criminal procedure with respect to a suspect's rights to legal representation. We present preliminary data on Canadian citizens' misunderstanding of criminal suspects' right to counsel and also Canadian legal professionals' opinions about the right to counsel. We recommend empirical investigation of the hypothesis that Canadian suspects are more likely than the US suspects to make false confessions.     

刑事证据制度发展中的阶段性进步——刑事证据两个规定评析

刑事证据两个规定针对司法实践中的重点与难点予以规范,初步确立了现代刑事证据法中的一些基本原则和规则,标示着我国刑事证据立法取得了阶段性进步。但是,从比较法的角度看,在两个规定中．对于正当法律程序、直接言词原则的体现并不充分;非法口供排除规则未能强调“任意性”标准,只是一种最低限度的排除;而对非法获得的实物证据采取宽容态度,不利于对公民财产权、隐私权的保护;大量的关于瑕疵证据可以进行补正和解释的规定,大大降低了刑事证据的可采性标准。目前有必要进一步完善具体的制度规范,积极改善司法环境,促进两个规定的贯彻实施．推动我国刑事法治向前发展。     

“只有被告人供述”案件司法证明的谬误与厘清

我国《刑事诉讼法》第55条规定之目的,在于改善司法机关依赖口供定罪的现状,从而避免刑讯逼供等非法取证行为的发生,真正实现保障人权的基本目标。但是实践中不仅存在仅凭口供定罪的情形,还存在通过异化口供形式或者形式化口供补强,以规避第55条约束的现象。异化的口供形式,本质上仍然是“被告人供述”;形式化的口供补强规则,是以“被告人供述”为中心形成虚假印证。考虑到《刑事诉讼法》的根本目标,应当对第55条进行实质解释,既不能通过异化口供来定案,也不能进行形式化口供补强,将口供作为定案的主要依据。换言之,应当不断降低口供在司法证明中的证明力,积极寻找其他客观性证据,并结合排除合理怀疑的证明要求,从而达到我国的刑事证明标准,才是《刑事诉讼法》第55条的合理适用。     

关于建立侦查讯问中律师在场制度的尝试与思考

业已进行的讯问犯罪嫌疑人律师在场制度的试验表明:犯罪嫌疑人对此一般表示欢迎,他们在侦查中形成的口供比较稳定,此后没有翻供现象;而另一组没有律师参加讯问的犯罪嫌疑人,侦查终结后有的人进行翻供,并把原因归咎于侦查人员的不当讯问。同时,大多数侦查人员对试验表示理解和支持,并认为对侦查活动没有负面影响,反而有积极意义。试验还表明,建立讯问犯罪嫌疑人律师在场制度,并不需要“一刀切”,且我国目前及今后相当长一段时期也难以做到“一刀切”,因此,需要探索、建立替代性制度,如讯问时录音、录像制度。     

Confessions and denials and the relationship with personality

Purpose. The main aim of the study was to examine the reasons and personality factors associated with confessions and denials. It was hypothesized that antisocial personality traits and active involvement in criminal behaviour would distinguish true confessors and true deniers from false confessors and false deniers. Method. The participants were 1,080 students in further education in Iceland. Each was asked about false admissions made to teachers and parents in the past, as well as about confessions or denials (true and false) made to the police during questioning, and the reasons for having responded in the way they did. The participants also completed questionnaires relating to offending, personality and self‐esteem. Results. One‐quarter (25%) of the participants stated that they had in the past been interrogated by the police in relation to a suspected offence, of whom 59% said they had confessed. A small minority of those interrogated (3.7%; 1% of the total sample) claimed to have made false confessions to the police, whereas 10% claimed to have made false confessions to teachers or parents. Males were significantly more likely to report false confessions than females. False confessions and false denials were significantly associated with antisocial personality traits, with Eysenck Personality Questionnaire Psychoticism being the single best predictor. Those participants who made true confessions and true denials were most normal in their personality. Conclusions. Personality is a significant predictor of who makes false confessions and false denials.