【摘要】：近些年來,隨著我國司法實(shí)踐的不斷深入和與世界接軌,特別是2012年刑事訴訟法修正案的實(shí)施,偵查訊問中錄音錄像制度得到確立和發(fā)展,這是刑事訴訟法的一大進(jìn)步,在很大程度上為避免和解決偵查訊問中刑訊逼供的問題、保證當(dāng)事人的合法權(quán)利發(fā)揮了不可替代的作用。但由于全程錄音錄像制度在我國建立時(shí)間不長,還是新生事物、正在成長,很不成熟,因此,急切需要進(jìn)一步加強(qiáng)研究,加以完善修正。本文就是從這一目的出發(fā),試圖借鑒世界各國全程錄音錄像的研究成果,主要是英國、美國的先進(jìn)經(jīng)驗(yàn),對照比較我國全程錄音錄像制度的實(shí)踐過程,分析了全程錄音錄像制度的現(xiàn)狀、優(yōu)勢和本身存在的固有的問題,對如何完善全程錄音錄像制度作了一些淺顯的思考并提出了一些不成型的看法和建議。引言和第一章論文寫作的過程和我國錄音錄像制度的確立和演變過程。引言從論文為什么選錄音錄像制度這個(gè)題目說起,介紹研究的內(nèi)容方法和重點(diǎn)難點(diǎn)。第一章從《中華人民共和國憲法》對人權(quán)的保障和刑事訴訟法121條說起,介紹了我國錄音錄像制度的確立和演變過程。第二章則著眼于西方的全程錄音錄像制度,主要介紹了英國、美國的全程錄音錄像制度。筆者發(fā)現(xiàn),在西方國家,律師在場權(quán)的確立是全程錄音錄像更好發(fā)揮作用的保障。第三章分析了全程錄音錄像制度的優(yōu)勢和存在的問題。全程錄音錄像的優(yōu)勢:有利于防范刑訊逼供,減少和避免冤假錯(cuò)案的發(fā)生;降低了犯罪嫌疑人虛假供述的可能性,提高了辦案效率;保障犯罪嫌疑人的知情權(quán),避免了在偵查中信息不對稱的情形;提高偵查人員辦案能力,規(guī)范偵查人員訊問手段;有利于偵查人員的自身保護(hù),還偵查人員清白。全程錄音錄像制度本身固有的問題:從心理學(xué)的角度分析,全程錄音錄像制度不能完全保證客觀公正;全程錄音錄像不能克服偵查訊問所固有的強(qiáng)制性,也不能像律師在場制度那樣起到很好的預(yù)防作用;不能解決好偵查不規(guī)范的問題,“欺詐偵查”的度難以把握;看守所在全程錄音錄像中的地位作用,決定了看守所具有預(yù)防刑訊逼供的優(yōu)勢和劣勢。第四章:通過北京、河南、云南三地2014-2016年非法證據(jù)排除情況的統(tǒng)計(jì)和分析,得出了以下結(jié)論:在非法證據(jù)排除程序中,法官對全程錄音錄像證據(jù)表現(xiàn)出很大的依賴,全程錄音錄像制度有淪為應(yīng)對翻供和非法證據(jù)排除工具之嫌的問題;非法證據(jù)排除程序定位不清,判決文字較簡陋,法官未承擔(dān)詳盡審查的義務(wù);非法證據(jù)排除程序,律師沒有起到相應(yīng)的作用。第五章提出了如何改進(jìn)和完善全程錄音錄像制度建議。主要是兩個(gè)方面:從制度本身內(nèi)在的機(jī)制機(jī)理出發(fā),賦予辯護(hù)方與控訴方平等的錄音錄像查閱權(quán)、建立錄音錄像會簽制度、保持錄音錄像適當(dāng)?shù)撵`活性、堅(jiān)持錄音錄像全程性、建立偵羈分離機(jī)制和審錄分離制度;從外部條件出發(fā),保障非法證據(jù)排除中法官中立審判和建立可選擇的律師在場制度。
[Abstract]:In recent years, with the deepening of China's judicial practice and the implementation of the Amendment to the Criminal Procedure Law in 2012, the system of recording and video recording in investigation and interrogation has been established and developed. This is a great progress of the Criminal Procedure Law, to a great extent, to avoid and solve the problem of extorting confessions by torture in investigation and interrogation and to ensure the parties concerned. People's legitimate rights play an irreplaceable role. However, due to the fact that the whole-course recording and video recording system has not been established for a long time in China, it is still a new thing and is growing and immature. Therefore, it is urgent to further strengthen the study and improve it. The research results are mainly the advanced experience of Britain and the United States. By comparing and comparing the practice process of the whole-course recording and video recording system in China, this paper analyzes the present situation, advantages and inherent problems of the whole-course recording and video recording system, and puts forward some shallow thoughts and suggestions on how to improve the whole-course recording and video recording system. The introduction begins with the topic of why the paper selected the system of recording and recording, and introduces the contents, methods, key points and difficulties of the study. The first chapter begins with the protection of human rights in the Constitution of the People's Republic of China and the 121 articles of the Criminal Procedure Law. The second chapter focuses on the whole-process recording and recording system in the West, mainly introduces the whole-process recording and recording system in the United Kingdom and the United States. The advantages of the whole process of recording and recording are: to prevent extorting confessions by torture, to reduce and avoid the occurrence of unjust and false cases; to reduce the possibility of false confessions by criminal suspects, to improve the efficiency of handling cases; to protect the right to know of criminal suspects, to avoid information asymmetry in the investigation; to improve the investigators; The whole-process recording and video recording system has its own inherent problems: from a psychological point of view, the whole-process recording and video recording system can not completely guarantee the objective and just; the whole-process recording and video recording can not overcome the inherent mandatory nature of the investigation and interrogation, but also. Unlike the lawyer present system, it can not play a very good preventive role; can not solve the problem of irregular investigation, "fraud investigation" degree is difficult to grasp; the role of the guard in the whole process of audio and video recording, determines the advantages and disadvantages of the guard to prevent torture extortion. Chapter IV: through Beijing, Henan, Yunnan, 2014-2016 three places. The statistics and analysis of the exclusion of illegal evidence in 1998 have drawn the following conclusions: in the exclusion procedure of illegal evidence, judges have shown great reliance on the whole process of recording and video evidence, the whole process of recording and video system has become a tool to deal with the problem of duplication of confession and the exclusion of illegal evidence; the exclusion procedure of illegal evidence is unclear, and the verdict is worse. The fifth chapter puts forward suggestions on how to improve and perfect the whole-process recording and video recording system. It mainly includes two aspects: starting from the inherent mechanism of the system itself, giving the defense and the prosecution equal access to the recording and video recording. We should establish a system of recording and video signature, maintain the proper flexibility of recording and video recording, adhere to the whole process of recording and video recording, establish a mechanism of separation of investigation and detention and a system of separation of auditing and recording, safeguard the neutrality of judges in the exclusion of illegal evidence and establish an optional system of lawyers present from the external conditions.
【學(xué)位授予單位】：中國政法大學(xué)
【學(xué)位級別】：碩士
【學(xué)位授予年份】：2017
【分類號】：D925.2

【參考文獻(xiàn)】

相關(guān)期刊論文 前5條

1 閔春雷;楊波;謝登科;賈志強(qiáng);;東北三省檢察機(jī)關(guān)新刑訴法實(shí)施調(diào)研報(bào)告[J];國家檢察官學(xué)院學(xué)報(bào);2014年03期

2 萬毅;;“曲意釋法”現(xiàn)象批判——以刑事辯護(hù)制度為中心的分析[J];政法論壇;2013年02期

3 王彪;;法院內(nèi)部控制刑事裁判權(quán)的方法與反思[J];中國刑事法雜志;2013年02期

4 陳國慶;;強(qiáng)化法律監(jiān)督 遏制刑訊逼供[J];人民檢察;2006年19期

5 陳偉;“米蘭達(dá)法則”與美國憲法修正案[J];讀書;2000年07期

相關(guān)博士學(xué)位論文 前1條

1 閆召華;口供中心主義評析[D];西南政法大學(xué);2012年

，

本文編號：2244859