透析犯罪心理——谈审讯技巧适用

反贪工作中的审讯,是案件办理过程中最为枯燥、乏味、耗时;同时也是最技巧,最具挑战性,最体现胜利的一项工作,很多同行们都从不同的角度对审讯技巧有深刻的阐述,本文旨在从犯罪心理的角度来解读在实际审讯工作中的技巧运用。     

试论警察的审讯圈套

警察审讯犯罪嫌疑人的目的是查明案件的事实真相和获取诉讼证据。犯罪嫌疑人出于防御的本能和趋利避害的心理,总是想否认犯罪,逃避惩罚,因此,审讯不可避免地存在着激烈的对抗性,警察如果想用对待普通守法公民的态度和方法从有罪者中获得证明其有罪的信息,显然是十分困难的,因此,他必须使用一些技巧和策略。从我国的刑事审讯实践看,欺骗性方法也是被实际允许并不时使用的。这种方法在刑事侦查学上常被称为“审讯策略”,其实质是“利用对方的劣势和弱点进行的心战智斗”。     

“六攻律”在全程同步录音录像活动中的运用

为了适应全程同步录音录像的实战要求,使侦查审讯活动进一步规范化,根据犯罪嫌疑人供述认罪的六大基本规律。经过大量的审讯实践,总结出了“六攻律”的基本对策和方法。心理误区的攻击规律和审讯方法;心理限制的攻击规律和审讯方法;心理置换的攻击规律和审讯方法;意识经验的攻击规律和审讯方法;人格倾向的攻击规律和审讯方法;“需要”理论的攻击规律和审讯方法。“六攻律”不仅能够规范审讯方法,减少审讯人员的随意性和盲目性,而且能够有效地打击犯罪,有着很强的实战性。     

侦讯时使用录音的技巧

<正> 侦讯过程中使用审讯录音的技巧,在很大程度上取决于审讯的性质以及录音和播放录音的技巧。审讯时使用录音有个很大的好处,就是能把被审讯者的供词和回答方式最完整地记录下来。因为使用了录音,被审讯者就不再担心记录时漏掉什么重要情况了,再说,也不必在审讯过程中作什么草记了。而且,甚至进行长时间的审讯,也不必为了记录(即便是草记)供词     

审讯中的倾听

俗话讲：说者无意，听者有心。在侦查审讯的实践中，审讯者的“听”更是一门需要深入探讨和实践的艺术。为什么要听、听什么、怎么听等等是对审讯人员提出的较高要求。     

审讯突破受贿案件的若干问题探析

虽然法律规定重证据、重调查研究、不轻信口供,但在目前受贿案件的侦查、起诉、审判等司法环节中,还是无供不录案,故突破口供显得相当重要。口供的录取离不开审讯,审讯突破的成败关系到办案的质量与效率。然而,检察机关如何通过科学、合理、合法的方法来获取有价值的口供,体现司法规律,这需要从思维模式、科技手段、初查准备、审讯的谋略与技巧以及人员素质等多方面作考量与配合,是一项综合系统工程,本文结合受贿犯罪的特点,试从不同角度对受贿案件的审讯突破展开探讨。     

纳什均衡博弈理论与职务犯罪审讯实践刍议

“纳什均衡”属于非合作性博奕,对于职务犯罪审讯实践具有重要的借鉴和指导意义。检察人员在职务犯罪审讯中,应当依靠敏锐的意识、逻辑分析、情势把握,及时、准确地找到本案中的“纳什均衡”点,顺利取得审讯进程的飞跃。     

试论“情感感化营销”在审讯中的影响

本文试通过运用情感类电视广告视频在审讯中的植入，在产生的情感触动的影响方面作出一些探讨。“情感感化营销”在审讯活动中有着重要的作用，在实践中侦查人员要选择好“情感感化营销”涉入的对机，重视通过正确运用情感感化的方法，实现促使犯罪嫌疑人如实供述犯罪事实的审讯目标，最终达到“不纵不枉”的审讯目的。     

审讯提问之问题类型研究

审讯一般以问答的方式进行。提问就是提出问题,它涉及两个方面的内容:一是问题本身;再是如何提出。探讨问题的不同类型,认识并把握其属性与功能,有助于侦查人员合理、技巧地提出问题。     

浅析审讯技巧

本文结合具体的实践经验,针对审讯工作的特点总结了相关的工作经验,以期对做好审讯工作有所助益。     

High-Risk Interrogation: Using the “Mr. Big Technique” to Elicit Confessions

Kassin et al. (Police-Induced Confessions: Risk Factors and Recommendation, 2009) provide a detailed and thoughtful analysis of how police interrogation practices might elicit false confessions from innocent suspects. The purpose of this commentary is to provide a brief review of a relatively recent development in Canadian police investigation practice and discuss how this procedure may increase the likelihood of police-induced false confessions. The so-called “Mr. Big Technique” is a non-custodial interrogation tactic wherein suspects are drawn into a supposed criminal organization (actually an elaborate police sting) and subsequently told that to move up in the organization, they must confess to a crime. In this article, we describe this remarkable interrogation technique and discuss issues relevant to the potential induction of false confessions.     

The Central Park Jogger Case-Police Coercion and Secrecy in Interrogation

Abstract

The prosecution and recent legal reversals in the New York “Central Park Jogger” case are discussed with a focus on the preoccupation with crime in US society and concerns regarding racial discrimination in the legal system. It is argued that the inherently coercive nature of interrogation, and the secrecy that surrounds custodial interrogation, create conditions that are ripe for abusive treatment. The phenomenon of false confession is presented and discussed with regard to the Central Park Jogger and other cases. The author advocates the recording and preservation of the entire period of custodial questioning so that there is an objective record of the interrogation methods that lead to “confession” statements.     

Urgent issues and prospects in reforming interrogation practices in the United States and Canada

The current article presents a series of commentaries on urgent issues and prospects in reforming interrogation practices in Canada and the United States. Researchers and practitioners, who have devoted much of their careers to the field of police and intelligence interrogations, were asked to provide their insights on an area of interrogation research that they believe requires immediate attention. The submitted independent commentaries covered a variety of topics – from police recruitment, interrogation training, use of proper interrogation practices, and the treatment of confession evidence in court. Common concerns from the contributions pertained to the lag between scientific knowledge on interrogations and the application of such knowledge in the justice system, and the glaring disparity between the treatment of similar issues in the interrogation context versus other criminal justice contexts. A primary intent of this collection of commentaries is to serve as a resource pointing researchers in the direction of the fundamental areas that require immediate consideration and encouraging them to simultaneously pursue solutions to the overarching concerns that emerged from this project.     

Are hypnotically induced pseudomemories resistant to cross-examination?

Two experiments examined the effects of hypnotic procedures in response to interrogation and crossexamination in subjects who viewed a simulated robbery. Experiment 1 found that hypnotic and nonhypnotic leading interrogations were equally likely to produce misattributions and misidentification of mug shots. Moreover, under cross-examination subjects who had been given an hypnotic interrogation and those given nonhypnotic interrogations were equally likely to disavow their earlier misattributions and misidentifications. In both hypnotic and nonhypnotic treatments high hypnotizables were more likely than low hypnotizables to misattribute characteristics during interrogation and to disavow earlier misattributions during cross-examination. In Experiment 2 high hypnotizables given a cross-examination that legitimated their earlier errors as honest mistakes and that enabled them to disavow earlier testimony without discrediting themselves (hidden observer treatment) showed the highest and most consistent rates of disavowel. A stringent cross-examination that implied that subjects had been careless or dishonest during interrogation produced the lowest rates of disavowel.     

重新审视律师在场权:一种消极主义面向的可能性——以侦查讯问期间为研究节点

经过《刑事诉讼法》三次修改,中国的刑事辩护制度在立法上取得重大进展,基本上已与国际规则和标准接轨,律师的各项权利不断丰富发展,日益完善。但时至今日,唯独律师在场权没有落实。西方法治国家均建立了讯问时律师在场权,并呈现出积极和消极两种模式。随着"以审判为中心"的诉讼制度改革开展、认罪认罚从宽制度入法,律师在场权的问题再一次被提出,其在我国已具备现实可行的条件和契机。鉴于制度本土化的诉求,应当考虑借鉴消极面向的基本范式,即以监督和事后反馈的方式保障犯罪嫌疑人的诉讼权利不受侵犯。同时,制度改革需要详细构建侦讯期间律师在场权的适用范围、供给来源、权利类型和流程设计等规则。     

Written records of police interrogation: differential registration as determinant of statement credibility and interrogation quality

Abstract

The backbone of Dutch criminal procedure is the case file including a large number of written records. In Dutch courts the focus is primarily on evaluation of written records. The written record of police interrogation is a mediated account of the interrogation itself. In this study we explore how individual differences in the production of written records by police officers affect the jurists' evaluation of the suspect's story and of the quality of the interrogation itself. In the first study, five police officers produced written records of one and the same interrogation on video of a denying suspect. In the second study, three of those written records are evaluated by jurists. They are asked to determine story acceptability of the suspect and procedural fairness of the interrogation. Findings show that a short and simple interrogation of a suspect results in written records that are quite different (Study I). It is further shown that these differences affect the jurists' evaluation of some of the core issues addressed in a criminal process (Study II). Implications of these findings are discussed as well as a number of possible ways to improve the current state of affairs.     

Police interrogation practice in Slovenia

Interrogation techniques are well explored, but in Slovenia it has remained unknown what interrogation techniques are used and what the basic characteristics of suspect interrogations are. The Slovenian interrogation manual proposes some coercive interrogation techniques and neglects their weaknesses. The aim of the current study was to examine Slovenian police officers’ beliefs as to the basic characteristics of their interrogations and whether techniques proposed by the manual are used in practice to begin to provide some insight into what actually happens in such interrogations. A survey instrument was used to obtain self-report data from a sample of criminal investigators. From 86 completed questionnaires it was found that a typical interrogation of a suspect lasts around 90 minutes and is not recorded. Interviewers typically use three interrogation techniques namely (i) conducting interrogations in isolation; (ii) identifying contradictions in the suspect's story; and (iii) confronting the suspect with evidence. Findings suggest that some coercive interrogation techniques are used in practice (e.g. offering moral justifications, alluding to have evidence of guilt, good cop/bad cop routine, and minimization). The study is the first insight into the practices of Slovenian investigators when questioning suspects. Differences among general, white-collar and organized crime investigators are also discussed.     

试论警察盘查权与人权保障

警察盘查权包括当场盘问权和检查权和继续盘问权,其中,当场盘查是任意性行政措施,继续盘问为强制性行政措施.警察盘问权是一种由警察在没有中立机关干预下随机实施的一项措施,决定了自由裁量权较常态下要大的多,导致了侵犯人权现象比较突出,主要表现为经常使用拉网式的盘查,盘查执法随意性过大,对盘查理解偏狭和滥用盘查权.因此,必须进一步改造盘查权,对盘查的对象、时间、继续盘查的地点严格限制,将盘查纳入刑事检察监督的视野,提高警察素质,加强人权教育,严格依法办案,在打击违法犯罪、维护社会秩序和切实保障公民人权方面寻求最佳结合点.