反对强迫自证其罪规则的引入与评析

一、反对强迫自证其罪规则的概念和在我国的现状 反对强迫自证其罪通常被视为一项权利或者特权,因而又被称为＂拒绝强迫自我归罪的权利＂或＂不必自我归罪的特权＂,是指在刑事案件中不得强迫任何人自我归罪或者作出不利于自己的陈述。     

不被强迫自证其罪权主体范围的扩展——单位不被强迫自证其罪权研究

“不得强迫任何人证实自己有罪”已于2012年正式纳入我国《刑事诉讼法》,标志着不被强迫自证其罪权在我国立法中得以确立。但法律并未明确规定该条款是否适用于涉案企业等单位主体，通过法律解释的方法将该权益的主体扩展到单位也无实质意义。在企业合规改革逐渐深化的当下，加强对涉案企业刑事追责过程中相关诉讼权益的保护，与以企业为代表的单位的诉权保护立法简陋的矛盾日益凸显。通过立法的方式，将单位明确规定为不被强迫自证其罪权的主体，并辅以配套保障制度，已成为完善单位犯罪立法、保护涉案企业正当法律权益的必然选择。虽然，单位因为不具备自然人的耻感，对其不被强迫自证其罪权进行保护的紧迫性较自然人弱些。但单位不被强迫自证其罪权作为一种道德权利，在我国当前社会事实下仍有其正当性基础。我国应秉持制度功利主义权利观，通过立法明确赋予单位不被强迫自证其罪权。     

相对沉黩权制度——中国之必然

沉默权,学理上又称反对强迫自证其罪的特权,是指在刑事诉讼中,犯罪嫌疑人和被告人所享有的,可以对警察、检察官或者法官的讯问保持沉默,而不被强迫自证其罪的权利。这一权利,从观念上来源于英国的法谚:“任何人无义务控告自己”。这一制度的起源     

论不强迫自证其罪原则

本文阐述了联合国人权公约中“不强迫自证其罪”规定的意义 ,分析了强迫自证其罪的构成 ,提出强迫自证其罪的法律后果分为 :国家责任、实施者责任和取得证据的排除。文章分析了目前在我国确立不强迫自证其罪原则的困难 ,同时也指出了这方面存在的有利条件。作者认为 ,在我国确立不强迫自证其罪原则不能一步到位 ,而需要逐步实现 ,并就此提出了具体的设想。     

论我国刑事诉讼法中的不得强迫自证其罪原则

我国1979年和1996年刑事诉讼法没有规定不得强迫自证其罪原则.2012年新刑事诉讼法明确规定“不得强迫自证其罪”的同时,保留了“如实陈述”条款.由于我国没有完全确立不得强迫自证其罪原则,没有规定沉默权,因而与如实陈述之间不存在冲突.完善我国不得强迫自证其罪原则,需要将不得强迫自证其罪规定在总则的基本原则中,删除“如实陈述”条款,确立沉默权条款,并规定不得强迫自证其罪的例外情形.     

浅论我国刑事诉讼法中应设立不被强迫自证其罪原则

本文通过论证不被强迫自证其罪刑事诉讼原则的正当性和合理性,明确了其内涵、重要作用和意义,提出我国应设立不被强迫自证其罪原则,并结合我国现行刑事诉讼法的相关规定,分析其设立的利弊,提出自己的看法和修改建议。     

美国集合实体规则的演进及评析

"反对强迫自证其罪特权"是美国宪法第五修正条款的重要内容之一,这一特权的权域是在与集合实体规则的竞争中逐步得以明确的。通过判例,美国联邦最高法院已将集合实体规则适用于个人独资公司,投资者设立独资公司的行为被认为隐含地放弃了"不被强迫自证其罪特权",这一新近发展值得关注。通过考察集合实体规则在美国的演进过程及其遭遇的困境,提出在我国确立不被强迫自证其罪原则的同时,应明确这一特权无差别地适用于一切自然人,但当公安司法人员已经预知证据的存在及其持有人时,持有人无权主张不被强迫自证其罪权,必须提供该证据。     

论犯罪嫌疑人的反对强迫自证其罪特权——基于侦讯程序的比较研究

目次一、反对强迫自证其罪特权的定义及其适用范围二、反对强迫自证其罪特权的起源三、反对强迫自证其罪特权与侦查讯问四、反对强迫自证其罪特权与中国刑事诉讼法一、反对强迫自证其罪特权的定义及其适用范围     

公诉环节犯罪嫌疑人防御性权利构建

正完善犯罪嫌疑人、被告人的诉权是保障其人权得以实现的重要手段。根据权利的性质和作用可以分为防御性权利和救济性权利,防御性权利是指犯罪嫌疑人对控方追诉进行抗衡所享有的一切权利。在检察公诉环节,应确保犯罪嫌疑人防御性权利的实现。一、"不强迫自证其罪"原则及其实现联合国《公民权利和政治权利国际公约》第14条规定了刑事案件中被指控的人"不被强迫作不利于他     

费希尔案与反对强迫自我归罪特权

美国第五修正案规定的"反对强迫自证其罪原则",集中体现了国家与个人在追诉犯罪活动中的基本权力/权利-义务关系:尽管个人负有协助国家追诉犯罪的一般法律义务,但是,国家不得强制个人协助国家追诉其本人的犯罪行为。正是基于这一原因,在现代法治社会,作为现代刑事诉讼的基础性原则之一,反对强迫自证其罪原则被赋予了与无罪推定原则同等重要的法律地位。     

美国死刑案件有罪答辩自愿性探微

在美国,享有不被强迫自证其罪的权利是保障被告人认罪自愿性的基础。在死刑案件中,被告人作有罪答辩时得到了有效而合格的律师帮助、具有与其律师交流的能力、在知晓指控的性质和答辩有罪的后果是被告人自愿认罪的标志,选择陪审团审判而可能被判处死刑并不是强迫被告人认罪的必然因素。     

An Immodest Proposal: Hobbes Rather than Locke Provides a Forerunner for Modern Rights Theory

In this paper I argue that we should look to Hobbes rather than to Locke as providing a philosophical forerunner of modern and current rights theories and further, that Hobbes’s theory has relevance to and ‘speaks to’ current philosophical and jurisprudential analysis of the foundations of rights, in a way that Locke’s theory cannot. First, I summarise the argument that Hobbes does have a substantive theory of individual rights. Second, I argue that the project undertaken by A. J. Simmons, to ‘reconstruct’ Locke’s theory of rights without the theological premises, cannot succeed. Locke’s theory of natural rights is thoroughly dependent on its theological premises. Third, I argue that Hobbes’s theory of rights is not dependent on theological premises. Finally, I try to illustrate the ways in which Hobbes’s theory is still relevant and useful for current debates within rights theory.     

Rethinking the Privilege Against Self-Incrimination

While recognized in a large number of jurisdictions, the privilegeagainst self-incrimination proves hard to justify. This articleattempts to develop a rationale for the privilege which avoidsthe usual pitfalls. It argues that the most compelling rationalefor the privilege is that it serves as a distancing mechanism,allowing defendants to disassociate themselves from prosecutions.The resulting account has implications for the scope of theprivilege. First, it suggests that no distinction should bedrawn between requirements to speak and requirements to providethe authorities with documents, blood samples and the like.Second, it is argued that recognition of a privilege againstself-incrimination implies that we should recognize a privilegeagainst other incrimination which has similar force. Attentionis also paid to exceptions to the privilege.     

美洲发现对现代立法者的启示——《政府论》中自然法思想的可能性初探

霍布斯开创了现代政治哲学,但其学说矛盾重重,洛克完善了它。在《政府论》中,洛克为现代人勾画了一套政制蓝图。在其中,洛克通过精巧布置的美洲论述表明了他的意图,《政府论》中的政制蓝图具有现实的实践意义,它可以在新发现的大陆——美洲——得以最充分的展现。     

Responses to Salduz: Procedural Tradition,Change and the Need for Effective Defence

This article examines the responses of national courts to the ECtHR's decision in Salduz v Turkey that suspects be provided with access to a lawyer before they are first interrogated by the police. It argues that harmonious application of human rights standards in criminal proceedings should build upon common values underpinning the procedural traditions of member states. ECtHR success in gaining acceptance for the principle of access to a lawyer during police interrogation, anchoring it in the privilege against incrimination, is contrasted with resistance towards giving the defence any active role during criminal investigations. It is argued that this resistance can be overcome by an appeal to safeguards that have long dominated the trial process. As the investigation phase increasingly determines the outcome of criminal proceedings, standards of fairness traditionally reserved for the trial process should be applied also to this phase in order to provide suspects with an effective defence.     

霍布斯的“身体宪法哲学”

面对古典"灵魂宪法哲学"所造成的秩序混乱,霍布斯从身体出发对宪法本性进行新的探求。宪法哲学的道德基础是自我保存的自然权利,它根源于对暴死的恐惧。原初的宪法是契约,契约来自立约人的意志,经过"代表"的伟大虚构,它实质上来自于主权者的意志。主权者的意志体现是法律,它规定了主权者和公民的基本权利义务关系。由霍布斯奠定的现代宪法哲学放弃追求有德性的生活,求取生命的保存、身体的自由和舒适。由于古典公民德性的缺失,现代人的身体面临着被国家权力既保护又专制的命运。     

A Hohfeldian Analysis of Hobbesian Rights

This paper has a threefold purpose: first, to criticize the customary application of Hohfeld’s theory of rights to Hobbes’s juridical/political theory that reduces all Hobbesian rights to Hohfeldian privileges; second, to defend the appropriateness of a proper application of a Hohfeldian analysis of rights to Hobbes’s theory by responding to criticisms offered by Eleanor Curran; and, lastly, to reveal the value a Hohfeldian analysis offers in clarifying a Hobbesian right that has been generally misunderstood in the literature. I argue that a Hohfeldian analysis helps make sense of the complex juridical relationships between the sovereign, the perpetrator of crime, and the victim of crime involved in Hobbes’s treatment of the sovereign’s right to punish.     

A comparative study on sanction system of cyber aider from perspectives of German and Chinese criminal law

In the context of the global information age, cases concerning the provision of technical assistance to commit cybercrimes are growing in leaps and bounds and a brand-new crime-as-a-service industry is beginning to take shape. German criminal law addresses this issue in the context of joint commission theory and individual incrimination as complementary, whereas the Chinese model, by contrast, has made marked progress in the fight against cyber aiding by introducing new criminal provisions. The change of cyber-aiding indeed represents a significant challenge to current criminal legislation and consideration of its criminal countermeasures is indispensably significant.     

Hobbes’ Frontispiece: Authorship,Subordination and Contract

In this article I argue that the famous image on Hobbes’ frontispiece of Leviathan provides a more honest picture of authority and of contract than is provided by today’s liberal images of free and equal persons, who are pictured as sitting round a negotiating table making a decision as to the principles on which to base laws. Importantly, in the seventeenth century, at the start of modern political thought, Hobbes saw no contradiction between contractual agreement and subordination. I will draw out these arguments by comparing three images of politics that employ the human body: Hobbes’ frontispiece is compared firstly with an earlier picture of the state, the illustration of the Fable of the Belly, and then with a later Rawlsian image of the social contract described above. At stake is Hobbes’ view of two associated concepts: authorship and authority. I argue that Hobbes’ image is a vivid portrayal of a ‘persona covert’, akin to the feme covert, a wife characterised in common law as so dominated by her husband that she is imagined as being ‘covered’ by his body.     

The Path of the Law Review: How Interfield Ties Contribute to Institutional Emergence and Buffer against Change

Early neoinstitutional theory tended to assume institutional reproduction, while recent accounts privilege situations in which alternative models from outside an organizational environment or delegitimizing criticism from within precipitate institutional change. We know little about institutions that persist despite such change conditions. Recent advances in sociological field theory suggest that interfield ties contribute to institutional change but under‐theorize how such ties may reinforce institutions. Extending both approaches, I incorporate self‐reinforcing mechanisms from path‐dependence scholarship. I elucidate my framework by analyzing the student‐edited, student‐reviewed law review. Despite its anomalous position relative to the dominant peer‐reviewed journal model of other disciplines, and despite sustained criticisms from those who publish in them, the law review remains a bedrock institution of law schools and legal scholarship. I combine qualitative historical analyses of legal scholarship and law schools with quantitative analyses of law‐review structures and field contestation. The analysis covers law review's entire historical trajectory—its emergence, its institutionalization and coherence of a field around it, and its current state as a contested but persistent institution. I argue that self‐reinforcing mechanisms evident in law review's ties to related fields‐legal practice, law schools, the university, and legal periodicals—both enabled its emergence and have buffered it against change.