沉默的自由（六）

其次,从如实陈述义务在实践上的效果看,它违背了无罪推定关于控诉方负举证责任的证据规则。无论英美法系国家的学者,还是大陆法系国家的学者,均将证明责任的分配规则视为无罪推定原则的核心内容,我国学者亦普遍认为,证据法上的无罪推定,首先解决的是举证责任问题：任何人在经证据证实并由司法判定有罪之前都应视为无罪,那么控告他人有罪的控告者就应承担证明责任。当控诉方不能举出确实充分的证据证明被告人有罪时,即使被告方未能举出证据证明自己无罪,也不能对其作出有罪的认定,因为被告人不负证明自己无罪的义务。如实陈述义务…     

无罪推定原则的确立与口供制度的完善

无罪推定是被追诉者的一项基本权利,也是被追诉者各项诉讼权利的基础。在刑事诉讼中将无罪推定确立为指导刑事诉讼活动的基本准则,就是无罪推定原则。我国应当在刑事诉讼中彻底确立无罪推定原则。无罪推定及其引申的主要内容应当分为三个层次:证明责任、被追诉者的权利和对被追诉者的权利的保障。由于无罪推定假定被追诉者无罪,对控诉的举证责任应由控方承担,被追诉者不承担无罪的举证责任,所以,被追诉者就没有理由配合控方提供自己犯罪的证据,包括口供。我国刑事诉讼法关于"犯罪嫌疑人对侦查人员的提问,应当如实回答"的规定,违背了无罪推定关于被追诉者不应当承担举证或证明责任的基本精神,使得被追诉者负有帮助侦控方履行举证和证明的义务。这一规定实质上表明我国刑诉法要求被追诉者承担举证或证明责任。因此,从无罪推定的这一层面上说"应当如实回答"是不合理的,应当予以取消。     

无罪推定原则的确立与口供制度的完善

无罪推定是被追诉者的一项基本权利，也是被追诉者各项诉讼权利的基础。在刑事诉讼中将无罪推定确立为指导刑事诉讼活动的基本准则．就是无罪推定原则。我国应当在刑事诉讼中彻底确立无罪推定原则。无罪推定及其引申的主要内容应当分为三个层次：证明责任、被追诉者的权利和对被追诉者的权利的保障。由于无罪推定假定被追诉者无罪，对控诉的举证责任应由控方承担，被追诉者不承担无罪的举证责任，所以，被追诉者就没有理由配合控方提供自己犯罪的证据，包括口供。我国刑事诉讼法关于“犯罪嫌疑人对侦查人员的提问，应当如实回答”的规定，违背了无罪推定关于被追诉者不应当承担举证或证明责任的基本精神，使得被追诉者负有帮助侦控方履行举证和证明的义务。这一规定实质上表明我国刑诉法要求被追诉者承担举证或证明责任。因此，从无罪推定的这一层面上说“应当如实回答”是不合理的，应当予以取消。     

无罪推定的法律效果比较研究——一种历时分析

无罪推定最初表现为一种富有人权保障价值的证据法原则。但由于产生背景和发展进路的不同,无罪推定在英美法系和大陆法系的功能定位和法律效果上有一定差别:前者将其作为审判阶段的证明规则,后者则以无罪推定的证据法内涵为基础,充分挖掘其程序法意义,将其塑造为具有多重法律效果的人权原则。二战后,无罪推定的国际化虽然推动了无罪推定法律效果限制和生效范围的一些共同基准的形成,但对各法系无罪推定法律效果的影响并不均衡。     

无罪推定原则思考

无罪推定原则思考陈林林要不要把无罪推定作为一条诉讼原则规定在我国的刑事诉讼制度中，法学界在５０年代后期和７０年代末、８０年代初曾出现过两次论辩的高峰，其争论的主要问题是：对无罪推定的理解；无罪推定产生的时代背景；我国刑事诉讼中有无无罪推定原则的规则；...     

证据法的基本权利保障取向

证据法的理性主义传统,既要求通过理性证明的方式去查明事实真相,而非诉诸神明和暴力;又不以追求真相为最高目的,而是将其视为实现正义的手段。这种理性传统,决定了法治国家证据制度具有求真、求善的双重功能,并将公正奉为首要价值,从而奠定了基本权利保障的价值取向。我国证据法学研究和证据制度建设正在经历从义务本位向权利本位转型,权利意识逐步觉醒。在这个转型过程中,应该将人权司法保障奉为证据法公正价值的核心内容,在贯彻无罪推定、不得自证其罪原则的前提下,确保刑事被告质证权的行使,发挥非法证据排除规则、作证特免权规则对刑事被告基本权利的保障作用。     

试论刑事司法与证据制度的价值取向

在司法活动中,存在着各种价值冲突.作者认为,在刑事诉讼过程中,必须特别注意保护被告人的利益,保护被告人和犯罪嫌疑人的基本权利,实体公正与程序公正不可偏废.在证明价值取向方面,要以法律真实作为司法证明的基本标准;在举证责任的价值取向方面,坚持无罪推定的原则;在非法证据的价值取向方面,坚持非法证据排除规则.     

刑事证据规则的解释原理与路径

刑事证据规则的调整对象、规则特征与程序性规则有所不同,所以其解释原理也应有所不同。刑事证据规则的解释应当遵循以准确认定事实为核心原则、“非必要,不限制”原则、妥当性优先原则。准确认定事实是刑事证据规则解释中的核心规范目的,其内涵应为不枉不纵;无罪推定原则是对证明责任解释的限制,刑事证据规则的解释无须遵循无罪推定所内涵的存疑有利于被告人原则,但应当将事实问题与法律问题难以区分的情形视为事实问题,适用存疑有利于被告人原则;人权保障是刑事诉讼的根本目的之一,但人权保障不等于解释结果要有利于被告人;程序法定原则对刑事证据规则解释的限制仅在于不得通过解释而扩充国家刑事司法权力并侵害公民权利。由于证据能力规则、证明力规则、证明标准、证明责任等几类主要证据规则所调整的对象及规范目的不同,所以可在遵循上述解释原理的前提下对各类证据规则的解释路径、方法进行类型化的探讨。     

反传闻规则初探

反传闻规则是英美法系证据法中一个重要的法则 ,它最早起源于英国。 1 684年ＬｏｒｄＪｅｆｆｒｅｙｓ法官在判决中说 ,证人重述他曾听到的某人说过的话 ,不能作为证据。此后 ,这一原则一直为判例所沿用 ,成为英美法系的证据可采性原则下的一个重要规则。一、反传闻规则内涵及其特征传闻证据是指在审判时代替陈述的书面材料 ,或以他人的陈述为内容所作的陈述 ,被用来证明原陈述的事实是否真实的证据。在国外 ,多数国家明文规定“传闻不得采纳为证据” ,这一规则从设置的本意上讲 ,它是排除一种证明手段的规则 ,而不是排除事实的规则。传闻不…     

我国的刑事诉讼与反对自我归罪原则

我国的刑事诉讼法规定了无罪推定、如实供述义务以及非法证据排除规则。这些原则在理论界被认为是反对自我归罪原则的雏形。并且,在理论界中不少学者极力倡导在我国建立反对自我归罪原则的必要性,本文结合现实,对该原则与我国刑事诉讼的关系进行分析。     

Assuming that the Defendant Is Not Guilty: The Presumption of Innocence in the German System of Criminal Justice

The presumption of innocence is not a presumption but an assumption or legal fiction. It requires agents of the state to treat a suspect or defendant in the criminal process as if he were in fact innocent. The presumption of innocence has a limited field of application. It applies only to agents of the state, and only during the criminal process. The presumption of innocence as such does not determine the amount of evidence necessary to find a defendant guilty. In spite of these limits, the presumption of innocence protects suspects and defendants from specific dangers inherent in the criminal process. German procedure law is used to show these areas.     

无罪推定原则的意义解读——一种诉讼法哲学分析

无罪推定已经成为现代国家的一项刑事诉讼法原则乃至宪法原则。无罪推定在各国立法例中虽然有肯定式和否定式两种表述方式 ,但其基本内涵却是相同的 ,即 :任何人在没有充分证据证明并由法院判决确定有罪之前 ,应作为无罪公民对待。作为一种关于正义的规范性命题 ,无罪推定原则具有内在的基本特征和诉讼程序规则 ,具有深厚的社会哲学基础和重要的政治法律意义。在建设社会主义法治国家进程中 ,无罪推定原则的进一步发展与完善 ,成为当代中国刑事诉讼法制现代化的迫切需要和时代课题。     

Innocence Commissions: Due Process Remedies and Protection for the Innocent

Currently the American criminal justice system has no institutional mechanism to evaluate the conviction of an innocent person. An innocence commission would fill this gap. The commission would automatically review any acknowledged case of wrongful conviction, whether the conviction was reversed on post-conviction DNA tests, or through development of new evidence of innocence. Upon review of these cases, the commission would recommend remedies to prevent such miscarriages of justice from happening again. This paper commences with a review of the primary areas of wrongful conviction, followed by recommendations made with respect to the substantive components constituting innocence commissions. To empirically demonstrate the fiscal soundness of creating an innocence commission, data was gathered pertaining to the state of Arizona. Statements from criminal justice professionals and politicians in support of innocence commissions conclude our discussion.     

The Right to be Presumed Innocent

The presumption of innocence has often been understood as a doctrine that can be explained primarily by instrumental concerns relating to accurate fact-finding in the criminal trial and that has few if any implications outside the trial itself. In this paper, I argue, in contrast, that in a liberal legal order everyone has a right to be presumed innocent simply in virtue of being a person. Every person has a right not to be subjected to criminal punishment unless and until he or she has done something that is criminally wrong. Since disagreements about allegations of criminal wrongdoing are inevitable, the liberal legal order requires a process for determining whether wrongdoing has occurred. In order to preserve the right not to be punished without wrongdoing, the accused person must be presumed innocent throughout this process. The presumption of innocence is therefore as much a basic human right as, for example, the right to bodily integrity or the right to freedom of expression. Specifications of and limitations on the right should therefore be justified not primarily in terms of their instrumental effectiveness in fact-finding or crime control but in terms of the role of the criminal process in a liberal legal order. I consider some implications of this view of the presumption of innocence for the pre-trial process and for substantive criminal law. I argue that the presumption of innocence, understood as a basic human right, should condition the entire pre-trial process; it has, however, minimal implications for the definition of offences.     

When Will a Victim Be Secondarily Victimized? The Effect of Observer's Belief in a Just World,Victim's Innocence and Persistence of Suffering

According to the belief in a just world (BJW) theory, the most threatening victim for the observers' BJW is the innocent victim whose suffering persists. Consequently the innocent victim whose suffering persists should be more secondarily victimized by high-BJW participants than by low-BJW participants. However, research has never systematically tested this basic prediction of the theory. In these two studies we tried to determine the impact of the observer's BJW, the victim's innocence, and the persistence of the victim's suffering on secondary victimization. In study 1, an interaction between BJW and victim's innocence was found on the attractiveness of the victim. In study 2, an interaction between BJW, victim's innocence, and persistence of suffering was found on the derogation of the victim.     

The Effects of Belief in a Just World and Victim's Innocence on Secondary Victimization,Judgements of Justice and Deservingness

Several studies have shown that victims judged to be innocent are more liked and helped by observers than victims judged to be noninnocent. Nevertheless, objectively innocent victims are very often secondarily victimized (blamed, devalued, avoided, or have their suffering minimized), and judged as deserving or as being in a just situation. An impressive amount of literature shows that high believers in a just world victimize the victims more than low believers, judge them as more deserving and think they are in a fairer situation. But the evaluation of the joint impact of the innocence of the victim and of the observers' BJW (belief in a just world) on the observers' reactions to the victim has been left undone. This study aims to throw some light on this subject. An experimental study was conducted using a 2 BJW (high; low) by 2 victim's innocence (innocent; noninnocent) between-subjects design. No interaction effects were found, but the forms of secondary victimization, as well as the judgements of justice and deservingness, were more positively correlated in the condition where the threat to BJW is higher.     

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.     

Limitations on the ability to negotiate justice: attorney perspectives on guilt,innocence, and legal advice in the current plea system

In the American criminal justice system the vast majority of criminal convictions occur as the result of guilty pleas, often made as a result of plea bargains, rather than jury trials. The incentives offered in exchange for guilty pleas mean that both innocent and guilty defendants plead guilty. We investigate the role of attorneys in this context, through interviews with criminal defense attorneys. We examine defense attorney perspectives on the extent to which innocent defendants are (and should be) pleading guilty in the current legal framework and investigate their views of their own role in this complex system. We also use a hypothetical case to probe the ways in which defense attorneys consider guilt or innocence when providing advice on pleas. Results indicate that attorney advice is influenced by guilt or innocence, but also that attorneys are limited in the extent to which they can negotiate justice for their clients in a system in which uncertainty and large discrepancies between outcomes of guilty pleas and conviction at trial can make it a sensible option to plead guilty even when innocent. Results also suggest conflicting opinions over the role of the attorney in the plea-bargaining process.     

Inside Interrogation: The Lie,The Bluff,and False Confessions

Using a less deceptive variant of the false evidence ploy, interrogators often use the bluff tactic, whereby they pretend to have evidence to be tested without further claiming that it necessarily implicates the suspect. Three experiments were conducted to assess the impact of the bluff on confession rates. Using the Kassin and Kiechel (Psychol Sci 7:125–128, 1996) computer crash paradigm, Experiment 1 indicated that bluffing increases false confessions comparable to the effect produced by the presentation of false evidence. Experiment 2 replicated the bluff effect and provided self-reports indicating that innocent participants saw the bluff as a promise of future exoneration which, paradoxically, made it easier to confess. Using a variant of the Russano et al. (Psychol Sci 16:481–486, 2005) cheating paradigm, Experiment 3 replicated the bluff effect on innocent suspects once again, though a ceiling effect was obtained in the guilty condition. Results suggest that the phenomenology of innocence can lead innocents to confess even in response to relatively benign interrogation tactics.