| 论德国刑事诉讼中的禁止欺骗性讯问规则——兼论我国禁止“欺骗取证”规定在侦讯中的适用 |
| |
| 引用本文： | 艾明.论德国刑事诉讼中的禁止欺骗性讯问规则——兼论我国禁止“欺骗取证”规定在侦讯中的适用[J].证据科学,2014(4):414-424. |
| |
| 作者姓名： | 艾明 |
| |
| 作者单位： | 广东警官学院,广州,510230 |
| |
| 基金项目： | 司法部2012年度国家法治与法学理论研究项目“审讯权力控制的新模式--公安机关执法场所规范化建设研究”(编号12SFB2034)的阶段成果。 |
| |
| 摘 要： | 借助司法裁判的方式，德国对何为刑事诉讼法禁止的欺骗性讯问发展出了一些判断标准。这些判断标准对解决禁止“欺骗取证”规定在我国侦讯中的适用问题具有一定的借鉴价值。在我国刑事诉讼法已确立不得强迫自证己罪原则，增强对犯罪嫌疑人口供自愿性保护的背景下，我国司法实务界应借鉴德国经验的合理内核，确立判明禁止的欺骗性讯问的基准，以指引侦查人员以合法的方式开展侦讯活动。
|
| 关 键 词： | 刑事诉讼 欺骗性讯问 隐秘探话 欺骗取证 |
Discussion on prohibiting deceptive interrogation rule in German Criminal Procedure--research on the application of prohibiting deceptively obtaining evidence rule in investigations in China |
| |
| Ai Ming.Discussion on prohibiting deceptive interrogation rule in German Criminal Procedure--research on the application of prohibiting deceptively obtaining evidence rule in investigations in China[J].Evidence Science,2014(4):414-424. |
| |
| Authors: | Ai Ming |
| |
| Institution: | Ai Ming( Guangdong Police College, Guangzhou 510230) |
| |
| Abstract: | Germany has developed some criteria that can help distinguish deceptive interrogation from lawful interrogation. These criteria have certain referential value to China. The principle of prohibiting selfincrimination has been established in Chinese criminal procedure law. In this context, the judicial practice in China should learn from the rational core of the German experience, establishing some criteria that can help distinguish deceptive interrogation from lawful interrogation. |
| |
| Keywords: | Criminal procedure Deceptive interrogation Covert questioning Deceptively obtaining evidence |
| 本文献已被 维普 万方数据 等数据库收录！ |
