侦查讯问全程同步录音录像的证据属性及其规范

检察机关讯问犯罪嫌疑人全程同步录音录像在刑事诉讼中具有证据的属性，而且不会突破现行法定证据种类。赋予全程同步录音录像证据资格，必须规范全程同步录音录像的制作过程，确立统一的技术规范、确定事前告知义务、完善始后全程和档案保存制度等。全程同步录音录像作为证据，基于其特殊性，应该在示证提请权、举示决定权、示证过程等方面作出特别规定。     

浅谈讯问职务犯罪嫌疑人实行全程同步录音录像工作中存在的问题及对策

同步录音录像是指人民检察院直接受理侦查的职务犯罪案件,每次讯问犯罪嫌疑人时。对讯问过程实施不间断录音录像的一项专门技术工作。如果询问证人需要录音录像的应当事先征得证人同意。检察机关讯问职务犯罪嫌疑人实行全程同步录音录像,在保障犯罪嫌疑人人权、规范检察机关办案、固定办案证据和减少被告人当庭翻供等方面起到了积极作用,但是由于同步录音录像工作是一项新兴的检察业务,实际工作中存在一些问题和不足。这些问题和不足制约了当前同步录音录像工作的发展。     

同步录音录像在检察院自侦工作中的应用

讯问职务犯罪嫌疑人实行全程同步录音录像,这是我国检察机关进一步深化改革,提高执法水平和办案质量的又一重要举措,是检察机关顺应法治进步潮流坚持公平正义的体现。同步录音录像的使用为检察机关在办理自侦案件固定证据时带来的诸多好处和便利,同时也对机关干警的审讯过程提出了新的要求和规范。     

讯问职务犯罪嫌疑人全程同步录音录像有关问题研究

在全国检察机关推行讯问职务犯罪嫌疑人时全程同步录音录像,是检察机关加强自身执法办案监督,规范侦查讯问活动,保障严格执法、文明办案的新举措。在司法实践中,推行全程同步录音录像,必须解决好三个问题:一、推行全程同步录音要遵守“五项”原则。推行全程同步录音录像,必须遵     

浅析人民检察院同步录音录像系统的建设与发展

一、引言 实行讯问职务犯罪嫌疑人全程同步录音录像，是检察机关“推进检察改革、保障司法公正”的一项重要内容，对于促进检察机关规范执法、促进执法公正，提高职务犯罪侦查水平具有非常积极的作用。检察机关建设全程同步录音录像历史由来已久，早在1999年，浙江省检察机关就在全国范围内率先尝试，2003年又推广到全省职务犯罪讯问工作中。四川省也于2002年在贡市首先运用录音录像技术固定视听证据。     

浅论全程录音录像证据的弹劾性

全程录音录像目前在刑事侦查、审判工作得到普遍应用,最高检还就讯问职务犯罪嫌疑人全程同步录音录像制度专门发布了规定。全程录音录像在证据运用、规范执法、保障人权等方面发挥着越来越重要的作用。同时,全程录音录像作为证据的补强性和弹劾性问题也应不容忽视,本文试就全程录音录像证据的弹劾性问题作一简要分析。     

试析职务犯罪讯问全程同步录音录像的证据属性

2005年12月,高检院下发了《人民检察院讯问职务犯罪嫌疑人实行全程同步录音录像的规定(试行)》,从2007年10月1日起,全国检察机关全面实行讯问职务犯罪嫌疑人全程同步录音录像制度。那讯问全程同步录音录像能否在刑事诉讼中作为证据使用?若能,又属于哪一种证据形式?笔者试着对这一问题作一探析。     

全程同步录音录像与讯问活动的衔接问题

检察机关实施自侦案件讯问犯罪嫌疑人全程同步录音录像制度，其目的在于及时全面固定犯罪证据，强化对讯问活动的监督，规范职务犯罪侦查活动，有效防止刑讯逼供等违法违纪现象的发生，保障办案质量，维护诉讼当事人的合法权益，促进依法、文明办案。但随着全程同步录音录像工作的不断深入开展，在录音录像与讯问活动的对接方面，还存在诸多亟待解决的问题，这些问题的存在直接制约了制度优势的充分发挥。     

讯问职务犯罪嫌疑人全程同步录音录像若干问题的探析

一、讯问全程同步录音录像的性质检察机关讯问职务犯罪嫌疑人的同步录音录像,是指在侦查讯问过程中将讯问的内容和当时的情景等记录在磁带、硬盘、光盘或其他载体上的一种证据固定的方式。在讯问结束后,     

对全程同步录音录像实践中存在几点问题的思考

检察机关讯问犯罪嫌疑人实行全程同步录音录像以来效果明显，但是仍有不和谐的声音出现，一些违规办案的情况还是时有发生。究英原因，一方面同步录音录像缺乏有效监督，另一方面在实际操作上仍存在一些问题未统一。那么由谁来对同步录音录像制度进行监督？如何对尚存争议的问题逐一完善？笔者认为应赋予检察机关纪检、监察部门同步录音录像的监督权，切实加强对同步录音录像实施情况的监管，以杜绝违法违规办案的情况再次发生     

Exploring the Disclosure of Forensic Evidence in Police Interviews with Suspects

Despite many years of empirical research focusing on investigative interviewing and detecting deception, very little research attention has been paid to the various types of evidence which feature in police interviews with suspects. In particular, the use of forensic evidence in the context of police interviews has not been previously considered, although in recent years the availability of various types of forensic analyses has dramatically increased. In the current study 398 experienced police interviewers from various countries completed a questionnaire about their experience of using various types of forensic evidence in interviews with suspects, as well as their perceptions regarding the strength of various sources of forensic information and how this may affect their interviewing strategy. The results indicated that although the participants have forensic evidence available in a large proportion of their interviews with suspects, the vast majority of police interviewers have received no training about how to interpret or use such forensic information. However, the perceived strength of forensic evidence was reported by some participants to affect their interview strategy and specifically the timing of the disclosure of such evidence during an interview. These findings are discussed with reference to police training and interview techniques, and suggestions for further research are offered.     

Police interrogation

Abstract

We describe a study of more than 1000 interrogations by Metropolitan Police Officers. Obtaining a confession is found to be the paramount reason for interviewing a suspect. However, few suspects who did not initially confess changed their minds during the interview. 42% of suspects admitted their guilt—about the same number as obtained before tape recording of interviews was introduced. Strength of evidence and legal advice were the principal factors associated with confessing. The confession rate also varied according to which police station hosted the “interview”. An “accusatorial” style of questioning was associated with the possession of strong evidence against the suspect.     

An analysis of how the police ‘caution’ is presented to juvenile suspects in England

In England and Wales, suspects must be given a police caution before they are questioned. The purpose of the caution is to explain a suspect's right to silence as a protection against self-incrimination. However, the evidence on whether the caution fulfils its purpose is limited. The aim of the present study was to describe how cautions were delivered in interviews with juvenile suspects in England. First, the study set out to describe how the caution was delivered to suspects during actual police interviews. Second, the study examined whether suspects claimed or demonstrated understanding of the caution. Third, the study analysed how the caution was explained by police officers. In total, the study examined 38 cautions from 31 interviews. The results indicated that police officers delivered the caution at a speed that is likely to be too fast for juvenile suspects to comprehend. Juvenile suspects often claimed to understand the caution, but when asked, failed to demonstrate comprehension. On the other hand, police officers often explained the caution to juvenile suspects, but not always correctly. Both suspects’ and police officers’ explanations of the caution revealed several misconceptions. The results suggest that the caution may not safeguard suspects as intended.     

论全程同步录音录像代替笔录固定口供

录音录像资料与传统的文字笔录都属于犯罪嫌疑人的供述和辩解,系被告人的庭前陈述,但前者可以使庭前陈述具有证据可采性,在翻供的情况下还可以转化为证明讯问过程合法的视听资料。当前检察机关在讯问职务犯罪嫌疑人时对口供的记录方式,采取以笔录为主以录音录像资料为辅的并用模式．这种并用模式在实践中不仅造成了司法资源的浪费,也干扰了正常的讯问工作,应采用单独使用录音录像固定口供的模式。     

The efficacy of the appropriate adult safeguard during police interviewing

Purpose. The main aim of the study was to examine the efficacy of the appropriate adult (AA) safeguard for vulnerable adult and juvenile suspects undergoing police interviews. Method. We examined the records of suspects held in custody by the London Metropolitan Police at 74 charging stations during February 1997 (Medford, Gudjonsson, & Pearse, 2000). Adult suspects whose custody record indicated psychological vulnerability were included in the study, as well as juvenile suspects. Audiotaped interviews of suspects were analysed using a special coding frame. The contribution (or lack of contribution) made by the AA, the extent to which they fulfilled their role, and the effect of their presence on other persons and interview outcome were examined and analysed. Results. Of the 501 interviews available for analysis, 365 (73%) were with adult suspects and 136 (27%) with juveniles. An AA was present during 212 (58%) adult interviews and 135 (99%) juvenile interviews. The AAs of juveniles, who were mainly family members and friends, contributed more in interview, both appropriately and inappropriately, than did social workers and volunteers, although overall there was little direct intervention bythe AA. Conclusions. Although AAs contribute little to the police interview in terms of verbal interactions, their mere presence during the police interview has three important effects. First, in the case of adults, but notjuveniles, it increases the likelihood that a legal representative will be present. Second, it appears to be associated with less interrogative pressure in interview. Third, in the presence of an AA, the legal representative takes on a more active role.     

浅谈刑事录像构图

摄像构图是使主题思想和创作意图形象化,可视化的过程,是依靠一系列造型手段,并通过摄像机的取景框以构成画面造型上的表现形式。熟练掌握摄影构图是提高刑事录像水平的关键,因此,我们有必要来探讨一下摄像构图的特点、动态构图的表现形式以及刑事录像构图的操作技巧。     

Interviewing to Elicit Cues to Deception: Improving Strategic Use of Evidence with General-To-Specific Framing of Evidence

Previous research has demonstrated that the strategic use of evidence (SUE) approach of interviewing criminal suspects is effective at eliciting cues to deception. This study aims at expanding on the SUE approach by testing the technique of general-to-specific evidence framing. We conducted an experiment using a mock terrorism paradigm. Guilty participants took part in a simulated act of terrorism, while innocent participants performed a similar act involving no transgression. All participants (N?=?102) were then interviewed using one of four evidence disclosure styles (early disclosure, late disclosure, 2-step disclosure, or 4-step disclosure). We expected that disclosing evidence to the suspect gradually, with increasing specificity, would induce guilty suspects to alter their statements to a greater extent than innocent suspects. General-to-specific evidence framing effectively discriminated between guilty and innocent suspects, but results only partially supported the hypotheses.     

定罪概念及原则的刑事一体化思考

从刑事一体化的视角将定罪作为动态的司法活动来考察 ,定罪是指国家专门机关依法定程序与证据 ,根据刑法 ,确定犯罪嫌疑人、被告人的行为是否符合刑法规定的犯罪构成的活动。定罪的主体是国家专门机关 ;定罪的对象是犯罪嫌疑人、被告人的行为 ;定罪的根据包括事实根据及法律根据 ;定罪的内容与目标是确定犯罪嫌疑人、被告人的行为是否符合刑法规定的犯罪构成 ;定罪既是司法人员的主观认识过程 ,又充满了法律价值的权衡与选择。定罪的原则包括程序法原则与实体法原则两大组成部分 ,定罪的程序法原则为程序法定原则、证据裁判原则、无罪推定原则 ;定罪的实体法原则包括罪之法定原则、主客观相统一原则、必要性原则。     

Examining Rapport in Investigative Interviews with Suspects: Does its Building and Maintenance Work?

Rapport is an important part of the interviewing of suspects, enabling them to supply information more freely. This study examined 142 actual interviews with suspects, focussing on key tasks that aid rapport. Using an established framework to examine rapport building skills in the early stages of interviews, the study also measured how skilled attempts at sustaining rapport were when interviewers attempted to gather information from suspects and probe accounts for their reliability. It was found that opportunities were often missed to build rapport in the initial stages as several tasks were overlooked. Also, where any rapport had been initially built, it was not always maintained as tasks undertaken later in the interview which may well have assisted rapport maintenance were often conducted unsatisfactorily. Thus, initial rapport building of itself, therefore, is not sufficient in influencing overall interview quality and outcomes, since rapport also has to be maintained throughout the interview.     

Guilty and innocent suspects’ strategies during police interrogations

Abstract

Deception detection has largely failed to investigate guilty and innocent suspects’ strategies. In this study, mock suspects (n=82) were interrogated by police trainees (n=82) who either were or were not trained in the technique to strategically use the evidence (the SUE technique). Analyses revealed that guilty suspects to a higher degree than innocent suspects applied strategies in order to appear truthful. Guilty suspects reported diverse strategies, while innocent suspects reported the strategy to tell the truth like it had happened, indicating a belief in the visibility of innocence. The realism in the suspects’ expectation about how their veracity was judged was largely dependent on the way in which they had been interrogated. The truth-telling suspects who were interrogated according to the SUE technique were optimistic about being judged as truthful; this optimism was warranted as the vast majority of them were classified as truthful. The SUE technique seems to help (a) spotting guilty suspects without them being aware of it and (b) spotting innocent suspects, and they become aware of it. That innocent (but not guilty) suspects can read how the interrogator views them is advantageous for the investigative process.