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。

To Establish the Counsel-Present System in Interrogating Suspects

The experiment of counsel-present system in the interrogation stage has proven that suspects are generally positive to it. When counsel is present at the interview, the confessions made by suspects are comparatively consistent and few of them withdraw their confessions in the later stage. On the contrary, the control group of suspects without counsel present in the interrogation stage is quite different. Some of them withdraw their confessions after the investigation and even complain of the impropriate ways of interview by the police. Meanwhile, most criminal investigators express their support to and understanding of the experiment. They think that the experience has positive rather than negative effect upon criminal investigation. The experiment also shows that it is unnecessary and is also impossible in China at the present time to establish a uniform counsel-present system. Thus, some alternative methods, such as record or video, should be introduced and adopted.