【摘要】：如實供述,是犯罪嫌疑人應(yīng)當(dāng)承擔(dān)的義務(wù),是坦白的主要內(nèi)容,是自首的構(gòu)成要件之一,雖然法律和司法解釋對犯罪嫌疑人如實回答、坦白和自首分別做出規(guī)定,但是理論上并沒有以如實供述為主線,對如實供述進行全面、系統(tǒng)的分析,司法實踐中對如實供述的理解和把握存在諸多不一致。因此,有必要專門對如實供述深入研究。文章包含四個部分:第一部分如實供述的概述。該部分介紹如實供述的歷史沿革、法律規(guī)定和理論基礎(chǔ),指出如實供述從封建社會延續(xù)至今,具有悠久的歷史淵源,如實供述自產(chǎn)生之日起,一直是自首和坦白的核心內(nèi)容�，F(xiàn)行法律沿襲如實供述規(guī)定,并在如實供述的基礎(chǔ)上設(shè)計出如實回答義務(wù),坦白和自首三項制度。如實供述的立法設(shè)計具有極大的功利主義價值取向,有利于節(jié)約司法資源、改造罪犯、修復(fù)社會關(guān)系,但是與沉默權(quán)存在價值悖論。第二部分如實供述的基本內(nèi)容。該部分從如實供述的時間、范圍和標(biāo)準(zhǔn)三個方面對如實供述展開系統(tǒng)分析。第一,如實供述的時間方面,自首的如實供述要求犯罪嫌疑人必須在第一次訊問時即交代主要犯罪事實;坦白的如實供述則可以將交代罪行的時間推至庭審中。第二,如實供述的范圍方面,偵查人員的提問對供述范圍有一定影響,一罪和數(shù)罪中供述范圍也不盡相同。第三,如實供述的標(biāo)準(zhǔn)方面,犯罪嫌疑人根據(jù)自己的認識和記憶對案件事實做出符合主觀認識和客觀事實的供述,即可認定供述的“如實性”。第三部分如實供述認定的疑難問題。第一,犯罪嫌疑人的供述存在反復(fù)的,應(yīng)當(dāng)根據(jù)如實供述的時間標(biāo)準(zhǔn)進行認定。如實供述的認定應(yīng)當(dāng)基于一審事實,不能根據(jù)二審被告人翻供的事實改變一審關(guān)于如實供述的認定。第二,連續(xù)犯應(yīng)根據(jù)已交代的犯罪事實與未交代的犯罪事實的危害程度認定如實供述;牽連犯、吸收犯應(yīng)當(dāng)根據(jù)異種數(shù)罪認定如實供述的方法進行判定。第三,連累犯供述己罪之外他人的犯罪行為、毒品犯罪分子供述毒品上下家、共同犯罪人對同案犯實行過限行為的供述均超出己罪的供述范圍,可以另行構(gòu)成自首或立功。第四,犯罪嫌疑人否認主觀故意,對主觀心態(tài)辯解的,不具備如實性,不能認定為如實供述。第四部分如實供述的立法完善和司法改進。第一,被采取強制措施的犯罪嫌疑人、被告人以及在押的罪犯,供述司法機關(guān)尚未掌握的“同種罪行”的,應(yīng)當(dāng)認定為余罪自首。第二,將“法律、事實上密切關(guān)聯(lián)的罪行”包含于“同種罪行”屬于不利于被告人的擴張解釋,應(yīng)當(dāng)摒棄。第三,超出如實供述范圍另行構(gòu)成自首或立功具備理論基礎(chǔ)、符合立法本意,應(yīng)當(dāng)依法予以認定。第四,將如實供述的定量分析和定性分析相區(qū)分,從定量分析角度建立與如實供述的時間、范圍和標(biāo)準(zhǔn)相適應(yīng)的梯度從輕、減輕處罰模型。
[Abstract]:Truthful confession is the duty of a criminal suspect, the main content of confession, and one of the constituent elements of surrender. Although the legal and judicial interpretations provide for the criminal suspect to answer truthfully, confess and surrender, respectively, However, there are many inconsistencies in the understanding and grasp of truthful confession in judicial practice, which is not based on the main line of truthful confession in theory, and makes a comprehensive and systematic analysis of truthful confession. Therefore, it is necessary to study the truthful confession in depth. The article consists of four parts: the first part is an overview of truthful confessions. This part introduces the historical evolution, legal provisions and theoretical basis of truthful confession, and points out that truthful confession has a long historical origin from feudal society until now. Truthful confession has been the core content of surrender and confession since its emergence. The present law follows the provisions of truthful confession and designs three systems of truthfully answering obligation, confessing and surrendering on the basis of truthful confession. The legislation design with truthful confession has a great utilitarian value orientation, which is beneficial to saving judicial resources, reforming criminals and repairing social relations. However, there is a value paradox with the right of silence. The second part is the basic content of the truthful confession. This part makes a systematic analysis of the truthful confession from three aspects: the time, the range and the standard. First, in terms of the time of the truthful confession, the confession requires the suspect to confess the main criminal facts at the first interrogation, and the frank and truthful confession can put the time of the confession to the trial. Second, the scope of truthful confession, investigators' questions have a certain impact on the scope of confession, one crime and several crimes in the scope of confession is not always the same. Third, in terms of the standard of truthful confession, the criminal suspect can identify the "truthfulness" of the confession by making a statement according to his own knowledge and memory to the facts of the case, which is in accordance with the subjective and objective facts. The third part truthfully confesses to identify the difficult problems. First, if there are repeated confessions of criminal suspects, they shall be identified according to the time standard of truthful confessions. The confirmation of truthful confession should be based on the facts of the first instance, and the confirmation of the truthful confession of the first instance should not be changed according to the facts of the confession retracted by the accused in the second instance. Second, the continuous crime should confirm the true confession according to the degree of harm of the criminal fact and the unexplained crime fact, and the implicated crime, the absorbing crime should be judged according to the method of determining the true confession according to the dissimilar number crime. Third, even recidivism confesses other people's criminal acts other than self-offenses, drug criminals confess that drugs go up and down, and the confessions of co-offenders to accomplices are beyond the scope of confessions of their own crimes, which may constitute surrender or meritorious service. Fourth, the suspect denies subjective intention, justifies the subjective mentality, does not have the reality, cannot be regarded as the truthful confession. The fourth part is the perfection of legislation and judicial improvement of truthful confession. First, if a suspect, a defendant or a criminal in custody, who has been taken coercive measures, confesses "the same type of crime" which the judicial organ has not yet mastered, he shall be deemed to have surrendered himself as a residual crime. Second, the inclusion of "de jure, de facto, closely related crimes" in "the same crime" is an expanded interpretation against the accused and should be abandoned. Third, beyond the scope of truthful confession, surrender or meritorious service has a theoretical basis, in line with the legislative intent, should be recognized in accordance with the law. Fourthly, the quantitative analysis and qualitative analysis of truthful confessions are distinguished, and the model of mitigating punishment is set up from the angle of quantitative analysis, which is suitable to the time, range and standard of truthful confession.
【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】：2015
【分類號】：D925.2

【相似文獻】

相關(guān)期刊論文 前10條

1 豆忠娟;;論自首中的“如實供述自己的罪行”[J];中國檢察官;2012年07期

2 張陽;;關(guān)于自首中“如實供述罪行”的幾點思考[J];中國人民公安大學(xué)學(xué)報(社會科學(xué)版);2009年01期

3 李偉迪;;如實供述同種罪不以自首論司法解釋的無效性[J];文史博覽(理論);2010年05期

4 張陽;;論自首中“如實供述”的司法認定[J];河南財經(jīng)政法大學(xué)學(xué)報;2013年02期

5 戴勇;;自首中“如實供述罪行”的準(zhǔn)確把握[J];安徽警官職業(yè)學(xué)院學(xué)報;2010年06期

6 張麗;;巨額財產(chǎn)來源不明罪自首的認定[J];滄桑;2011年01期

7 蘇公聞;卓然;;淺論制定和運用訊問對策應(yīng)遵循的原則[J];公安理論與實踐;1994年04期

8 張坡;;初查中被調(diào)查人如實供述認定為自首的思考[J];市場周刊(理論研究);2013年07期

9 王飛躍;;自首制度中“如實供述”的理解與認定[J];湘潭大學(xué)學(xué)報(哲學(xué)社會科學(xué)版);2009年05期

10 章禮明;;“雙規(guī)”期間如實供述與自首的司法認定[J];廣州大學(xué)學(xué)報(社會科學(xué)版);2011年01期

相關(guān)會議論文 前1條

1 陳柱釗;;如實供述罪行+退贓數(shù)額特別巨大=減輕處罰?!——“因如實供述罪行避免特別嚴(yán)重后果發(fā)生”之實踐應(yīng)用[A];建設(shè)公平正義社會與刑事法律適用問題研究-全國法院第24屆學(xué)術(shù)討論會獲獎?wù)撐募ㄏ聝裕C];2012年

相關(guān)重要報紙文章 前10條

1 王婧 翟二闖;嫌疑人一經(jīng)傳喚即如實供述，，是否自首[N];檢察日報;2005年

2 最高人民法院刑事審判第二庭;一審翻供二審如實供述不認定為自首[N];人民法院報;2004年

3 徐正清;供述不清楚算不算立功？[N];江蘇法制報;2007年

4 馬曉明;“坦白情節(jié)”在司法實踐中的適用[N];江蘇法制報;2012年

5 上海市高級人民法院刑二庭 羅開卷;坦白情節(jié)的認定與運用[N];上海法治報;2012年

6 河南省平頂山市人民檢察院 王曉民;一審判決前如實供述不應(yīng)一概認定為自首[N];檢察日報;2010年

7 山東省濟南市中級人民法院 瞿守印;電話傳喚到案如實供述的應(yīng)認定為自首[N];人民法院報;2011年

8 上海市第二中級人民法院 黃伯青;坦白在實踐中的若干問題及應(yīng)對[N];人民法院報;2011年

9 上海市奉賢區(qū)人民檢察院 樊華中;坦白認定中的若干情形甄別[N];檢察日報;2012年

10 安徽省人民檢察院 安徽省郎溪縣人民檢察院 李強 朱傳林;“坦白從寬”的理解與判定[N];檢察日報;2011年

相關(guān)碩士學(xué)位論文 前10條

1 秦亞亞;如實供述問題研究[D];西南政法大學(xué);2015年

2 劉璐;論自首中的“如實供述”[D];鄭州大學(xué);2012年

3 譚靚;論我國刑罰制度中的“如實供述”[D];湘潭大學(xué);2014年

4 張樂濤;坦白制度研究[D];江西財經(jīng)大學(xué);2012年

5 劉正;自首若干問題研究[D];華東政法大學(xué);2008年

6 史國榮;自首認定若干問題研究[D];吉林大學(xué);2009年

7 顏長青;論自首的認定[D];湖南師范大學(xué);2012年

8 王娜;自首認定的實踐難題及其解決[D];遼寧大學(xué);2012年

9 鄢志剛;我國刑法中坦白制度研究[D];南昌大學(xué);2013年

10 何夢秋;受賄案件中自首、立功的認定[D];西南政法大學(xué);2015年

本文編號：2436034