关于"沉默权"问题的理性思考

许多案例表明,如果赋予犯罪嫌疑人以沉默权,将给侦查破案造成不利的影响,最早确立沉默权的英国从多年的司法实践中发现沉默权规定不利于查明案情,于1994年对沉默权制度作了重大修改.美国对实施了30多年的"米兰达规则"也提出了疑问,并通过判例规定了"米兰达规则"的若干例外.我国的"坦白从宽,抗拒从严"政策的精髓在于鼓励有罪的犯罪嫌疑人、被告人坦白认罪,允许其进行无罪或罪轻的辩解,但不承认犯罪嫌疑人、被告人有沉默权.赋予犯罪嫌疑人沉默权,其实际意义就是限制警察的讯问权.我们不主张沉默权,并不意味着警察在讯问犯罪嫌疑人时可以不受任何限制.虽然在某些案件中,口供是必不可少的重要证据,但我们必须坚持严禁刑讯逼供或以威胁引诱、欺骗等非法方式逼取口供.刑事诉讼证据较之民事诉讼中的证据要复杂得多,如果再赋予犯罪嫌疑人沉默权,则无异为侦查工作设置障碍,将造成案件久侦难破.

The Rational Knowledge about the "the Right of Keeping Silent"

U K and U S A mended their regulations of the right of keeping silent after they found the regulations were not helpful to investigation.Although we have not that kind of regulation in China,it does not mean that there are no limits on the police when they interrogate the criminal suspects.We are forbidden to get confession by torture,threat,seducing or other illegal methods.So,if the criminal suspects are given the right of keeping silent,the interrogation will be harder to do.