试论准自首的理解与适用

理解和适用准自首的重点在于基于主体人身状态差别所形成的“具体行为的自动投案”即被动归案这一本质特征,从立法完善的角度看,将准自首适用的主体范围界定为“被关押的人员”,更为妥当。在准自首成立的罪行供述条件部分,对司法机关的范围应当结合具体个案的实际情况具体分析,有关司法机关的解释将“其他罪行”限定为“不同种罪行”,不尽合理。     

我国法庭治理刑讯逼供之反思与重构

刑讯逼供久禁不绝,侦查机关固然难辞其咎,但对侦查行为合法性的程序控制机制“失灵”也是易被忽视的重要原因之一。我国法庭对被告人提出的有关刑讯逼供的抗辩几乎一概置之不理,不仅使本已有限的司法审查权虚置,而且使被告人根本无法获得有效的司法救济。法庭在治理刑讯逼供问题上的“无能”表现,不仅有立法不周的原因,而且还有深层次的体制因素和思想根源———基于对这些制度化背景的认知与反思,构建程序性制裁制度,无疑是使法庭能够真正遏制刑讯逼供的最为现实的出路。     

我国刑事非法证据排除规则司法实践实证研究-以W市刑事审判实务为视角

在我国立法层面逐步建立非法证据排除制度的背景下,非法证据排除制度能否发挥预期的效果仍取决于在司法实务中的贯彻落实情况。通过分析W市法院近三年启动非法证据排除程序的实际情况,我们发现实务中仍存在对非法证据的范围认识不统一、刑讯逼供、疲劳审讯等非法方法的界定不明确、重复自白是否可采具有争议、程序性情况说明尚普遍存在等问题。在司法实务中正确贯彻落实非法证据排除规则,实现对非法取证行为的一般预防功能,首先需要转变重实体轻程序的传统观念,树立实体正义与程序正义并重的新观念,同时要着眼于我国刑事诉讼的现状,避免非法证据排除泛化。在具体操作上,要严格落实证明责任倒置原则,对控辩双方在非法证据排除程序中实行不同层次的证明标准,辩方提供的线索或材料只需达到“存在非法取证的可能性”这样较低程度的证明标准即可,控方的举证则需达到“排除合理怀疑”这样较高程度的证明标准。对于有辩护人的案件,尽量保证在庭前会议中最大可能地解决非法证据排除问题,避免不具备准入资格的非法证据进入庭审,在法官主持下,控辩双方在庭前会议中达成的协议应当具有约束力。     

非法证据排除规则的国内外比较研究

由于法律文化传统等的不同以及特定时期控制犯罪与保障人权的需要,不同国家之间以及同一国家在不同时期有关这一问题的诉讼理论和具体对策往往存在着许多差异。不过,随着人类社会进步和对刑事诉讼规律认识的提高,各国对违法取证的危害性的认识也日趋深刻,并在一些原则问题上达成了共识。     

行贿犯罪的刑法规制与完善

我国司法实践中存在＂重受贿、轻行贿＂现象,要纠正这一错误倾向,应当取消特别自首制度,明确行贿犯罪与受贿犯罪在立案过程中的平等地位。要实现刑法对行贿犯罪的有效规制,还需完善行贿犯罪的构成要件,将贿赂犯罪中的＂财物＂改为＂不正当好处＂,将行贿犯罪中的＂给予＂改为＂提议给予、许诺给予、实际给予＂;完善行贿犯罪的刑罚配置,为行贿犯罪全面配置罚金刑,并完善行贿犯罪的资格刑,对行贿犯罪与受贿犯罪实施同等处罚。与此同时,行贿犯罪的罪名体系也应作出适当调整。     

犯罪嫌疑人虚假供述识别的心理分析———以贪污贿赂犯罪为例

说谎是人的天性,侦讯中贪污贿赂嫌疑人虚假供述呈现自愿、屈从、内化多种样态.趋利避害的本能,高的智商、情商,位高权重、专业、一对一隐蔽性等特征,使嫌疑人供述更具欺骗性,侦讯难度更大.实践中侦查员对“承认所做之事的陈述”内心确信度很高;而对“否认所做之事的陈述”多有质疑,两种有悖常理的例外,恰恰挑战的是人的经验、思维定势和认知判断能力.经验与思维定势,既体现技能、水平,又易导致偏差、错误.大千世界,人生百态,一切皆有可能,抽丝剥茧、去伪存真,真相只有一个.把握贪污贿赂嫌疑人的情境心理,借助心理学讯问技术、不失为破解侦讯难题一种新选择.     

Comparing the effects of explicit and implicit false-evidence ploys on Mock Jurors' verdicts,sentencing recommendations,and perceptions of police interrogation

In police interrogation, an explicit false claim to have evidence raises important legal and constitutional questions. Therefore, some interrogation manuals recommend implicit false-evidence ploys (FEP) that ask suspects about potential evidence without making a direct claim to possess the evidence. Similar to the hypotheses in a recent study of implicit FEP and confession rates, we hypothesized that individuals would perceive implicit FEP as less coercive and deceptive when compared to explicit FEP that involve direct claims of false evidence. Although mock jurors rated all FEP as highly deceptive and coercive and as more deceptive than controls, we found that participants did not view implicit and explicit FEP differently and that ploy specificity (implicit or explicit) failed to affect verdicts or recommended sentences. These findings suggest that although interrogation trainers and scholars in law and psychology discriminate between the methods, jurors do not.     

Police interviewing styles and confessions in Japan

Psychological studies of suspects' confessions have been conducted mostly in English-speaking and European countries, and the results may not generalise to countries whose cultures and policing practices differ. In particular, the difference between Japanese and Western laws may affect the roles that police interviewers play in suspects' confessions. This study examined the interviewing techniques used by Japanese police officers and associated features of the suspects' confessions. An extensive questionnaire was completed by 276 police officers across Japan. Detailed ratings of their interview techniques were factor analysed, yielding five factors: Presentation of Evidence, Confrontation, Rapport Building, Active Listening, and Discussion of the Crime. Based on these five factors, we identified four interviewing styles: Evidence-focused, Confrontational, Relationship-focused, and Undifferentiated. When interrogators employed the Relationship-focused interviewing style, suspects were more likely to make full confessions and to provide new information. By contrast, suspects were more likely to make partial confessions and were less cooperative when the police officers employed an Evidence-focused style.     

Differences in personality and mental state between suspects and witnesses immediately after being interviewed by the police

Abstract

There is increased recognition that people interviewed by the police are often psychologically vulnerable due to modest intelligence, mental health problems, disturbed mental state, and personality problems. The current study aimed to investigate differences in the mental state and personality between suspects and witnesses. The participants were 78 individuals (47 suspects and 31 witnesses) who had been interviewed by the Icelandic police. They were assessed psychologically immediately after the interview with the police was completed. Significant differences emerged between the two groups with the suspects being more depressed, hopeless, compliant and personality disordered than the witnesses. Four of the suspects claimed to have made a false confession to the police due to their immediate need or psychological problems.     

Problems in expert deception detection and the risk of false confessions: no proof to the contrary in Levine et al. (2014)

Lie-detection research has shown that observers who rely on nonverbal cues or on verbal cues correctly classify on average 54% of truth tellers and liars. In addition, over the years, countless numbers of innocent people have made false confessions and, in analysing the problem, researchers have implicated both a suspect's vulnerability and the persuasive influence of certain police interrogation tactics. Levine et al. (2014) aim to contribute to these vast bodies of literature by reporting two studies purportedly showing that expert interviewers – when they are permitted to question interviewees – can achieve almost perfect accuracy without eliciting false confessions. We argue that theoretical and methodological aspects of these studies undermine the reliability and validity of the data reported, that as a result the studies do not contribute to the scientific literatures on lie detection and false confessions in any meaningful way, and that the results are dangerously misleading.