發(fā)布時(shí)間：2018-03-07 20:02

  本文選題：虛假自白　切入點(diǎn)：偵查人員　出處：《西南政法大學(xué)》2012年碩士論文　論文類型：學(xué)位論文

【摘要】：虛假自白是司法心理學(xué)的重要內(nèi)容，但不僅僅局限于司法心理學(xué)的范疇，它還是導(dǎo)致冤假錯(cuò)案的一個(gè)直接原因。近幾十年來，虛假自白理論在西方國家得到了迅速的發(fā)展，并已逐漸成為指導(dǎo)偵查訊問實(shí)踐的核心依據(jù)。在我國，對于虛假自白的理論研究還處于發(fā)端時(shí)期，但司法實(shí)踐中由虛假自白帶來的問題卻早已成為人們關(guān)注的熱點(diǎn)，理論與實(shí)踐的脫節(jié)導(dǎo)致立法的落后、司法中的錯(cuò)案頻頻，并且，虛假自白的產(chǎn)生方式逐漸由對犯罪嫌疑人的身體強(qiáng)制轉(zhuǎn)向心理強(qiáng)制，在人權(quán)呼聲高漲的今天，若再不加大對虛假自白的研究力度，中國面臨的將不僅僅是幾樁錯(cuò)案的問題，而是整個(gè)法治進(jìn)程的倒退。筆者閱讀了大量的外國文獻(xiàn)，參考了許多偵查訊問實(shí)例案件，在對虛假自白的形成因素進(jìn)行歸納總結(jié)后，著重構(gòu)建了防范中國司法實(shí)踐中存在的虛假自白的制度框架。筆者對立法上的些許完善建議，，希望對司法實(shí)踐有所幫助。 本文除引言之外分為三個(gè)部分。第一部分是虛假自白的概述。該部分首先通過比較西方各國對“自白”的內(nèi)涵和外延的界定，闡述了符合中國法治環(huán)境的準(zhǔn)確定義，即犯罪嫌疑人、被告人對有罪事實(shí)的承認(rèn)，這是虛假自白的應(yīng)有范疇；其次，對虛假自白進(jìn)行了分類，即自愿型虛假自白、壓迫-依從型虛假自白、壓迫-內(nèi)化型虛假自白；最后，從立法和實(shí)踐上簡要的分析了虛假自白的研究價(jià)值。 第二部分是虛假自白的形成原因。這是文章想表達(dá)的主要內(nèi)容之一，本部分對不同類型的虛假自白的形成原因進(jìn)行了詳細(xì)的分析。固然，虛假自白的形成是多方面因素綜合作用的結(jié)果，但目前中國司法實(shí)踐中存在的主要是導(dǎo)致壓迫-依從型虛假自白產(chǎn)生的因素—訊問環(huán)境和訊問方式。筆者通過對國內(nèi)司法實(shí)踐中具體案例的分析，來揭示壓迫-依從型虛假自白是如何一步步形成的。壓迫-內(nèi)化型虛假自白主要講的是偵查人員通過一定的訊問策略和技巧對犯罪嫌疑人進(jìn)行心理強(qiáng)制，而使其相信自己真實(shí)的犯了罪，這種情況在目前中國的司法實(shí)踐中是比較少見的，相信不少學(xué)者會(huì)對其做更深刻的研究。 文章第三部分探討的是虛假自白的防范機(jī)制。誠然，前兩部分的論述都是為這部分服務(wù)的，我們對理論的分析終歸要落實(shí)到實(shí)際問題上來。針對不同類型的虛假自白的形成原因，都會(huì)有相應(yīng)的解決機(jī)制。但正如第二部分提到的一樣，要解決中國司法實(shí)踐中出現(xiàn)的問題，當(dāng)務(wù)之急就是要解決壓迫-依從型虛假自白中的訊問環(huán)境和方式的問題，這也是本部分論述的主要方向。本部分從立法上對訊問時(shí)間、地點(diǎn)進(jìn)行規(guī)制，通過沉默權(quán)制度、律師在場權(quán)制度的運(yùn)行，最終確立了證據(jù)的相互印證規(guī)則，從而層層遞進(jìn)式的對虛假自白進(jìn)行防范。
[Abstract]:False confession is an important part of judicial psychology, but it is not limited to the category of judicial psychology. It is also a direct cause of false and false cases. In recent decades, the theory of false confessions has developed rapidly in western countries. In our country, the theoretical research on false confessions is still in its infancy, but the problems caused by false confessions in judicial practice have long been the focus of attention. The disconnection between theory and practice leads to the backwardness of legislation, the frequent wrong cases in the administration of justice, and the emergence of false confessions is gradually changing from the physical compulsion of criminal suspects to the psychological compulsion. Today, the voice of human rights is high. If we do not increase our research on false confessions, China will not only face the problem of several wrong cases, but also the retrogression of the whole process of ruling by law. After summing up the forming factors of false confessions, the author puts emphasis on constructing the institutional framework of preventing false confessions in judicial practice in China. The author makes some suggestions to improve the legislation, hoping to be helpful to the judicial practice. This paper is divided into three parts besides the introduction. The first part is an overview of false confessions. Firstly, by comparing the definitions of the connotation and extension of "confession" in western countries, the author expounds the accurate definition which conforms to the legal environment of China. That is, the criminal suspect and the defendant admit the guilty facts, which is the category of false confessions. Secondly, it classifies false confessions, that is, voluntary false confessions, oppressed and obedient false confessions, oppressed and internalized false confessions, and then classifies false confessions into three categories: voluntary false confessions, oppressed and obedient false confessions, oppressed and internalized false confessions. Finally, the research value of false confession is briefly analyzed in legislation and practice. The second part is the formation of false confessions. This is one of the main contents of the article, this part of the different types of false confessions are analyzed in detail. The formation of false confessions is the result of a combination of factors, But at present, what exists in the judicial practice in China is mainly the factors that lead to the false confessions of oppressive and compliance type-interrogation environment and interrogation methods. The author analyzes the specific cases in the domestic judicial practice. To reveal how the oppression-compliance false confessions are formed step by step. The main point of the oppressive and internalized false confessions is that the investigators impose psychological compulsion on the suspects through certain interrogation strategies and techniques. It is rare for them to believe that they have actually committed a crime in the current judicial practice in China. I believe many scholars will do more profound research on it. The third part of the article discusses the prevention mechanism of false confessions. Our analysis of the theory has to be carried out to practical problems. There are corresponding solutions to the causes of different types of false confessions. But as mentioned in the second part, In order to solve the problems in China's judicial practice, the urgent task is to solve the problem of interrogation environment and methods in oppressive and compliance false confessions, which is also the main direction of this part. Through the system of the right to silence and the operation of the system of lawyers' right to be present, the rules of mutual confirmation of evidence are established and the false confessions are prevented.
【學(xué)位授予單位】：西南政法大學(xué)
【學(xué)位級別】：碩士
【學(xué)位授予年份】：2012
【分類號】：D90-054

【參考文獻(xiàn)】

相關(guān)期刊論文 前10條

1 姜淑華;;論我國口供制度的現(xiàn)狀及完善[J];常熟理工學(xué)院學(xué)報(bào);2010年05期

2 葉寧;楊平;;訊問同步錄音錄像制度的冷思考——兼論刑訊逼供的制度性防范[J];法制與經(jīng)濟(jì)(中旬刊);2009年09期

3 陳海燕;;試論沉默權(quán)制度的設(shè)立對刑訊逼供的遏制[J];法制與社會(huì);2008年18期

4 邵秋明;;淺談?lì)A(yù)防冤假錯(cuò)案機(jī)制的完善——由趙作海案引發(fā)的思考[J];法制與社會(huì);2010年31期

5 吳瑞;馬秀娟;;刑訊逼供與律師在場權(quán)初論[J];法治研究;2008年06期

6 潘申明;魏修臣;;偵查訊問全程同步錄音錄像的證據(jù)屬性及其規(guī)范[J];華東政法大學(xué)學(xué)報(bào);2010年06期

7 楊偉偉;羅大華;;國外虛假自白研究的進(jìn)展[J];河南司法警官職業(yè)學(xué)院學(xué)報(bào);2007年01期

8 葛景富;;刑訊逼供與沉默權(quán)之探討[J];黑龍江社會(huì)科學(xué);2008年04期

9 陳實(shí);;佘祥林案件的思考與啟示[J];理論界;2005年12期

10 吳紀(jì)奎;;無辜者認(rèn)罪的成因分析——基于美國司法實(shí)踐的闡釋[J];寧波廣播電視大學(xué)學(xué)報(bào);2009年01期

本文編號：1580747