【摘要】：刑訊逼供，是指司法工作人員對(duì)犯罪嫌疑人、被告人使用肉刑或者變相肉刑，以獲取其供述的一種極惡劣的審訊方法。雖然我國(guó)法律已明文規(guī)定禁止刑訊逼供，但在司法實(shí)踐中刑訊逼供仍相當(dāng)程度的存在。刑訊逼供不僅是導(dǎo)致冤假錯(cuò)案的直接原因，另一方面刑訊逼供也使得公安司法機(jī)關(guān)在人民心目中的形象、權(quán)威受損。鑒于此，探討刑訊逼供的問(wèn)題，具有極大的現(xiàn)實(shí)意義。刑訊逼供作為一種野蠻、愚昧的辦案方式，，為現(xiàn)代法制文明所不恥。從16世紀(jì)歐洲資產(chǎn)階級(jí)民主革命反對(duì)封建殘暴司法，從1912年孫中山先生頒布法令宣布廢除刑訊逼供，刑訊逼供已經(jīng)為各國(guó)法律所嚴(yán)厲禁止。然而，時(shí)至今日，刑訊逼供并未絕跡，在我國(guó)依然普遍存在，屢禁不止，刑訊逼供已經(jīng)成為我國(guó)建設(shè)現(xiàn)代化法治國(guó)家的一個(gè)重要屏障。本文從刑訊逼供的概念、性質(zhì)入手，立足刑訊逼供的現(xiàn)實(shí)狀況和危害，通過(guò)剖析刑訊逼供發(fā)生的原因，借鑒各國(guó)防治之經(jīng)驗(yàn)，結(jié)合我國(guó)的實(shí)際情況，從法律制度和司法實(shí)踐兩個(gè)方面提出了遏制刑訊逼供的對(duì)策希望能給司法機(jī)關(guān)建立遏制刑訊逼供的有效機(jī)制，保護(hù)犯罪嫌疑人、被告人的人權(quán)提供有益的參考。 刑訊逼供作為一種違法犯罪行為，既侵犯了公民的人身權(quán)利，增加了改造罪犯的難度，又容易造成積案、疑案，甚至釀成冤假錯(cuò)案，危害甚重，應(yīng)該堅(jiān)決予以摒棄。刑訊逼供發(fā)端于奴隸制時(shí)期，根植于封建社會(huì)，可謂“根深蒂固”。在現(xiàn)代社會(huì)，滋生刑訊逼供的原因是多方面的。從歷史的角度看，主要是受封建社會(huì)“罪從供定”證據(jù)制度的影響，司法人員仍然存在封建特權(quán)思想，有罪推定的的流毒尚未肅清；從客觀上來(lái)說(shuō)，司法機(jī)關(guān)自身對(duì)刑訊逼供的打擊處理不力，辦案人員政治業(yè)務(wù)素質(zhì)低，偵查人員數(shù)量少、任務(wù)重、壓力大，監(jiān)督不到位；從主觀上講是偵查機(jī)關(guān)的負(fù)責(zé)人和偵查人員對(duì)刑訊逼供還存在認(rèn)識(shí)上的錯(cuò)誤，認(rèn)為刑訊逼供“無(wú)大錯(cuò)”、對(duì)偵查辦案“管用”；從現(xiàn)行法律制度上分析，在立法上，《刑事訴訟法》規(guī)定偵查機(jī)關(guān)同時(shí)具有對(duì)犯罪嫌疑人采取強(qiáng)制措施和偵查取證的雙重權(quán)力，使偵查活動(dòng)處于不公開(kāi)的、無(wú)法監(jiān)督的情形；同時(shí)，規(guī)
[Abstract]:Extorting confessions by torture means that judicial staff use corporal punishment or disguised corporal punishment to obtain confessions of criminal suspects and defendants in order to obtain a very bad interrogation method. Although the law of our country has explicitly prohibited extorting confessions by torture, it still exists to a certain extent in judicial practice. Extorting confessions by torture is not only the direct reason leading to false and false cases, but also impairing the image and authority of the public security and judicial organs in the eyes of the people. In view of this, it is of great practical significance to discuss the problem of extorting confessions by torture. Extorting confessions by torture, as a barbarous and ignorant way of handling cases, is not ashamed of modern legal civilization. The bourgeois democratic revolution in Europe in the 16th century opposed feudal and brutal justice, and in 1912, Mr. Sun Zhongshan issued a decree declaring the abolition of extortion of confessions by torture, which has been strictly prohibited by the laws of all countries. However, until now, extorting confessions by torture has not disappeared, and it still exists in our country. It has become an important barrier to the construction of a modern country ruled by law. This article starts with the concept and nature of extorting confessions by torture, based on the actual situation and harm of extorting confessions by torture, analyzes the causes of extorting confessions by torture, draws lessons from the experiences of prevention and cure in various countries, and combines the actual situation of our country. From the legal system and judicial practice, this paper puts forward some countermeasures to curb the extortion of confessions by torture in the hope that it can provide a useful reference for the judicial organs to establish an effective mechanism to curb the extortion of confessions by torture and to protect the human rights of criminal suspects and defendants. Extorting confessions by torture, as an illegal and criminal act, not only infringes on citizens' personal rights, increases the difficulty of reforming criminals, but also easily results in accumulated cases, suspicious cases and even cases of unjust falsehood and error, which are very harmful and should be resolutely abandoned. Extorting confessions by torture originated during slavery and was rooted in feudal society. In modern society, there are many reasons for producing confessions by torture. From the historical point of view, it is mainly influenced by the system of evidence of "crime for conviction" in feudal society, judicial personnel still have feudal privilege thought, the poison of presumption of guilt has not been cleared up; objectively speaking, The judicial organs themselves do not deal well with the crackdown on extorting confessions by torture, the quality of the political business of the case handlers is low, the number of investigators is small, the task is heavy, the pressure is great, and the supervision is not in place; Subjectively speaking, the person in charge of the investigation organ and the investigators still have errors in understanding the extortion of confessions by torture. They think that there is no big mistake in extorting confessions by torture, which is "useful" to the investigation and handling of cases; an analysis is made from the current legal system. In terms of legislation, the Criminal procedure Law stipulates that the investigative organs have the dual power to take compulsory measures against criminal suspects and to obtain evidence from investigation at the same time, so that the investigation activities are closed and cannot be supervised; at the same time,
【學(xué)位授予單位】：鄭州大學(xué)
【學(xué)位級(jí)別】：碩士
【學(xué)位授予年份】：2006
【分類(lèi)號(hào)】：D917;D925.2

【參考文獻(xiàn)】

相關(guān)期刊論文 前4條

1 齊文遠(yuǎn),周詳;“嚴(yán)打”方針的刑法學(xué)思考[J];法學(xué)論壇;2002年05期

2 李學(xué)寬;關(guān)于我國(guó)律師辯護(hù)功能的法律思考[J];中國(guó)法學(xué);1995年06期

3 陳光中;嚴(yán)打與司法公正的幾個(gè)問(wèn)題[J];中國(guó)刑事法雜志;2002年02期

4 黃慶芳;也談制止刑訊逼供——從制約訊問(wèn)權(quán)的角度[J];國(guó)家檢察官學(xué)院學(xué)報(bào);2002年02期

本文編號(hào)：2173032