Jurors’ reactions to recanted confessions: Do the defendant's personal and dispositional characteristics play a role?

Abstract

Confession evidence presented at trial is extremely damaging to the defense. This study examines the impact of a recanted confession on jurors’ perceptions of a murder case in which the defendant claimed to have falsely confessed due either to an underlying medical condition, a psychological disorder, or the general stress of the interrogation. Also included were an inadmissible confession condition and a no-confession control condition. Results showed that the impact of the confession was mediated in part by the circumstances surrounding it. Although probability-of-commission estimates were as high in all of the conditions involving a confession, conviction rates were marginally higher when the disputed confession involved mental illness or interrogation-induced stress than when there was no confession, yet did not differ when the disputed confession involved a medical disorder or there was no confession. These findings show that not all recanted confessions are treated equally and that people selectively discount confessions depending on biases and beliefs they hold.     

The prosecutor's interview with suspects in South Korea

South Korean criminal trials heavily depend on the investigation dossier written by prosecutor. The judges do no more than confirm evidence in the prosecutor's interview documents. This leads to a conviction rate exceeding 99 per cent, which is one of the highest in the world. The study aims to explore the reliability of such prosecutorial interview documents and the problems caused by criminal trials depending on them. This is based on a semi-structured interview of 20 legal professionals. Prosecutors' written interview records cannot help to regulate the risk of abuse as they provide the court with quite limited and skewed information. The criminal justice system should amend the evidentiary impact of the prosecutorial interview records. Instead, it should establish a number of appropriate safeguards to protect suspects against false confessions.     

法治理念下的职务犯罪侦查模式

职务犯罪侦查制度是一项重要的刑事司法制度。中国特色社会主义法律体系的形成必将推动职务犯罪侦查模式的革新与完善,促使检察机关查办职务犯罪理念向“由证到供”型方式转变。当前职务犯罪呈现的新特征凸显适用特殊侦查措施侦破案件的必要性,并迫切要求立法上的支持与完善。     

论被告人庭前供述的证据能力

被告人翻供是我国刑事司法实践的一大难题,由于被告人庭前供述缺乏证据能力规则的约束,法官普遍以被告人庭前供述定案,这是导致我国冤假错案的一项重要原因。为此,有必要建立完善的被告人庭前供述的证据能力规则。国外在被告人庭前供述准入制度的设置上,存在传闻例外模式与直接言词模式;在庭前供述排除制度的设置上,存在正当程序模式与任意性模式。我国宜借鉴直接言词模式与任意性模式,在庭前供述与当庭供述一致时,庭前供述不具备证据能力;在庭前供述与当庭供述不一致时,庭前供述如果具备自愿性要件可以作为弹劾证据,只有同时具备自愿性与真实性要件时才可作为实质证据。     

自侦案件犯罪嫌疑人翻供的原因与防范对策

司法实践中,犯罪嫌疑人往往基于不同的原因采取不同的形式翻供,造成了司法资源的极大浪费。侦查人员应根据不同情况,通过完善司法制度、教育帮助犯罪嫌疑人等手段减少翻供的发生。     

“两个证据”规定下翻供问题探讨

口供作为一种证明案件事实的证据,具有其他六种法定证据所无法超越的优势,但口供的特点又导致翻供现象在刑事诉讼过程中时有发生,翻供现象在余祥林、赵作海等错案曝光之后,日益引起司法实践部门的重视。2010年5月,两高三部出台了“两个证据”规定,在新的规定下如何正确对待翻供问题,才能既发挥口供的作用以查明案件事实、惩罚犯罪,又保障人权、节约司法资源、实现诉讼效益？笔者结合自己在司法实践中总结的部分感性认识和经验,分析研究刑事诉讼领域的关于证据的理论,借鉴他人的研究成果,对于“两个证据”规定后翻供问题的对策进行了深入的研究和探讨,并提出在立法和制度方面的建议。     

刑讯逼供案件举证责任归属问题研究

“谁主张,谁举证”是诉讼举证责任分配的基本原则,而举证责任倒置是该原则的有益补充。在刑事诉讼中,“谁主张,谁举证”的举证责任分配原则符合法律证明规律,有利于提高诉讼效率。在刑讯逼供案件中,控辩双方的诉讼地位是,被告对其提出的刑讯逼供诉讼主张承担举证责任,而公诉机关的诉讼角色只是对其诉讼主张进行反驳也即反证。     

刍议刑讯逼供

本文分析了刑讯逼供的危害和原因 ,并由此提出了防范和遏制刑讯逼供的对策。     

侦查讯问的博弈性探究

博弈论是研究理性行动者相互作用的形式理论,它正深入到经济学、政治学等社会科学,其原理也被广泛应用于这些学科。侦查讯问学本身也是一门研究参与双方决策互动的应用学科。讯问双方存在利益均衡点,运用讯问策略体现了博弈论原理,犯罪嫌疑人在讯问中面临不同“期望支付”的抉择,侦查讯问实际上是一个信息不对称的博弈。讯问的博弈性充分说明供述原理存在着博弈论根据。     

有罪答辩与量刑减让

被告人的有罪答辩对其获得的量刑减让有着重要的作用和影响。在英美等国 ,有罪答辩是量刑减让的正当依据 ,但有罪答辩与量刑减让之间并不存在必然的因果关系 ,法官对被告人施以的量刑减让以及减让的程度 ,还需考虑犯罪的性质、被告人的基本情况等其他因素。同时 ,量刑减让制度对于被告人有罪答辩的作出又存在反作用。被告人有罪答辩的作出来自于律师、检察官和法官传递的量刑减让的信息 ,在英美等国 ,法官对量刑减让信息的披露是受到严格限制的。我国传统意义上的坦白属于被控人的一项法定义务 ,具有实体意义 ,不同于有罪答辩 ,故坦白从宽政策不具有正当性。与此同时 ,我国简易程序中对有罪答辩的量刑减让则具有正当性 ,但减让的实施较英美等国有较大的限制。