侦审合并反思--基于侦查模式的分析

预审是公安机关办理刑事案件的重要环节.1996年修订的<刑事诉讼法>第九十条规定明确了预审在公安机关办理刑事案件中的地位.但由于诉讼模式、侦查模式的缺陷,预审制度的价值实现受到很大限制,在我国的"行政治罪"侦查模式之下侦审分设和侦审合并并无太大的差异,要实现以预审制度来保护犯罪嫌疑人的诉讼权利的立法意图必须改变我国的侦查模式.     

侦查讯问录音录像制度探析

侦查讯问录音录像作为一种现代刑事技术,不仅可以极大地减少刑讯逼供的发生,而且还能有效保障犯罪嫌疑人的权利,其作用已被我国司法界所认可。然而,在实践中我国司法界对其诉讼价值还未达成共识。本文通过对此问题的分析,进一步明确认识,以此推动我国侦查讯问录音录像制度的逐步完善。     

国外侦查讯问制度之比较

侦查讯问是案件侦查和刑事诉讼中的常用措施,各国由于价值观念、历史文化传统的差异,侦查讯问制度的内容不尽相同。具体差异主要体现在讯问主体、对象、程序、方法、时间等若干方面。     

论质疑抗辩原则与质证制度的完善

质疑抗辩原则包括平等对抗原则、辩论原则和质疑原则 ,体现了程序正义、实体正义和效率等现代司法价值 ,应该成为我国庭审质证活动的基本原则。在我国 ,诉讼双方无法均衡对抗、质证规则与程序缺失等现象从根本上违背了质疑抗辩原则 ,必须完善证据庭前展示制度 ,强化诉讼双方的质证能力 ,合理定位法官程序引导权 ,建立合理的质证程序和建立健全科学的质证规则 ,以切实贯彻质疑抗辩原则 ,完善质证活动。     

侦查讯问的法治效能提升路径研究

当前侦查讯问存在的困境是多方面、多层次的。侦查实践中普遍存在着刑事案件侦查对侦查讯问过度倚重的现象,这与以审判为中心的刑事诉讼制度改革要求侦查工作应当在过程与结果双重价值下运行的要旨相背,导致侦查人员在讯问过程中出现心理偏激和行为失范,更是案件"诉不出去"的重要原因。侦查人员应当确立"审讯的功夫应在审讯之外"的基本观念,才能充分释放侦查讯问的法治效能。     

关于“沉默权”问题的理性思考

我国“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,则无异于为侦查工作设置障碍,将造成案件久侦难破。     

论侦查讯问中犯罪嫌疑人的人权保障——比较法考察下的我国制度之构想

讯问作为侦查案件的必经程序,是侦查机关和犯罪嫌疑人展开正面交锋的关键阶段。随着人权保障理念的深化,犯罪嫌疑人作为侦查对抗中的弱势群体,其人权保障问题得到了广泛的关注,但惩罚犯罪的公权要求常常使侦查人员在对犯罪嫌疑人权利保障这一环节陷于两难的境地。本文从比较的角度对当前侦讯中犯罪嫌疑人人权保障的现状和原因进行分析,进而从实体分析和程序建构两方面进行了相关的构想。     

Taking the bait: interrogation questions about hypothetical evidence may inflate perceptions of guilt

ABSTRACT

During suspect interviews, police will sometimes ask about hypothetical incriminating evidence to evoke a cue to deception – a technique known as a bait question. Previous research has demonstrated such questions can distort peoples’ memory for what evidence exists in a case. Here, we investigate whether such memory distortion can also cause people to see the suspect as more likely to be guilty. Across three experiments, we find exposure to bait questions led to participants hold inflated views of a suspect’s guilt. Further, we demonstrate bait questions cause reliable, robust memory distortion, leading participants to believe non-existent, incriminating evidence exists. However, we found no evidence to support the speculated mechanisms for this inflation – namely, (1) that source monitoring errors could lead people to misremember false evidence as real evidence and (2) that bait questions provide ‘key evidence’ to fill in the gaps of an incomplete theory of a case. In sum, bait questions have the problematic potential to shift jurors towards guilty verdicts. We suggest future research directions on bait questions, including the need for different designs to clarify why bait questions inflate guilt, and recommend practitioners avoid the use of bait questions.     

论英国警察讯问较的发展

英国警察最初与普通公民一样，基本上不具有对犯罪嫌疑人的讯问权。司法判例以及20世纪前期发展的法官规则认可了事实上存在的警察讯问权并确立了基本的适用规则。由普通法调整的状况持续到20世纪80年代，制定法在规范警察讯问程序的同时也在一定程度上对公民的沉默权予以限制。警察讯问权总体上不断扩张，在这个过程中，普通法和制定法都努力保持警察侦查权与公民权利之间的平衡。     

Perceptions of children during a police interrogation: Guilt,confessions, and interview fairness

Abstract

Jurors are often provided with confession evidence and must determine whether the confession was true, false, coerced, or voluntary. As more juveniles are tried in adult criminal court, jurors must increasingly make these determinations about minors’ statements. In this study, mock jurors read an actual interrogation of a child suspect that included confession evidence, and then provided judgments regarding the coerciveness of the interrogation, the child's and police's knowledge and behaviors, and guilt. Child age (11 versus 14 years) and gender were manipulated and examined in relation to participant gender and pre-existing sympathy levels for juvenile offenders. Factors external to the suspect – participant gender and sympathy for juvenile offenders – interacted with child suspect factors to influence perceptions of the child, the interrogation, and guilt. When multiple factors were considered, perceptions of suspect credibility and police fairness were the strongest predictors of guilt and perceived culpability. The findings have implications for decision-making in cases involving juvenile defendants and confession evidence.