法律硕士论文

您当前的位置:学术堂 > 毕业论文 > 在职硕士论文 > 专业硕士论文 > 法律硕士论文 >

“威胁、引诱、欺骗”讯问方法的法律研究

来源:学术堂 作者:周老师
发布于:2015-10-30 共3449字
  本篇论文快速导航:

展开更多

  摘 要

  我国刑事诉讼法和相关司法解释一直严禁以“威胁、引诱、欺骗”方法获取口供。2012 年修改后的刑事诉讼法第 50 条规定:“严禁刑讯逼供和以威胁、引诱、欺骗以及其他非法方法收集证据”,明确将“威胁、引诱、欺骗”认定为 “非法方法”.但第 54条第 1 款规定:“采用刑讯逼供等非法方法收集的犯罪嫌疑人、被告人供述······,应当予以排除”,并未列举“威胁、引诱、欺骗”方法。立法上的这些规定,不仅从制度上进一步遏制了刑讯逼供和其他非法方法收集证据的行为,也对我国侦查讯问工作提出新的要求,带来新的挑战,成为侦查工作中的难点和争议问题,在一定程度上困扰着侦查实践。

  本论文研究的目标有两个:理解“威胁、引诱、欺骗”性讯问适用正当性与危害性的不同,提出把握实务中正确适用“威胁、引诱、欺骗”性讯问的方法和途径。众所周知,侦查讯问具有明显的对抗性特点,若要犯罪分子坦白交代,必然会运用到讯问中的各种策略方法,其中包括“威胁、引诱、欺骗” 性策略。司法实务中并非所有“威胁、引诱、欺骗”的审讯方法都损害供述的正当性,也并非所有的“威胁、引诱、欺骗”都会导致虚假口供。“威胁、引诱、欺骗”讯问方法好比一把双刃剑,在发挥其特殊作用的同时,如果超出法律界限就会带来无穷的危害,不仅会侵害被讯问的合法权益,也会损害国家形象和司法尊严,因此对侦查工作的“威胁、引诱、欺骗”讯问方法做出合乎法律正当性的界定,以最大程度的趋利避害,以确保侦查工作在修改后刑诉法背景下的顺利开展。

  本论文主要采用文献资料法、经验总结法、理论结合实践法等技术路线。在文献阅读研究阶段,收集和学习了大量国内外着名文献,笔者结合自身的侦查实践经验,在指导老师的帮助下,首先运用价值分析法对“威胁、引诱、欺骗”性讯问方法适用正当性与危害性进行分析,第二运用比较法研究对美国等主要代表国家的立法现状对“威胁、引诱、欺骗”性讯问的容许性及其界限做出分析,最后采用分析方法分析威胁、引诱、欺骗性讯问的法律界限,并提出司法实务中正确把握“威胁、引诱、欺骗”性讯问合法性的方法和途径。

  关键词:威胁、引诱、欺骗;讯问谋略;法律界限

  ABSTRACT

  China's criminal procedure law and relevant judicial interpretation has been prohibited in threat, enticement,deceit methord to obtain confessions, legislation explicitly “threat, enticement, deceit” identified as evidence in a“illegal method”.Fiftieth of the criminal procedure law amended in 2012stipulates that: “after it is strictly prohibited to torture toextract confessions and to collect evidence by threat, enticement,deceit and other illegalmethods”. Fifty-fourth,clearly regarded as to exclude illegally obtained evidence.Thismeans that the legislation explicitly “threat,enticement, deceit” identified as evidence ina “illegalmethod”. The implementation of the new criminalprocedure law has broughtnew challenges to theinvestigation work, become the difficult and controversial issues in investigation work, to a certain extent with theinvestigation practice. These legislativeprovisions, not only from the system further to curb torture to extract confessions andother illegal methods to collect evidence of behavior, also put forward new requirementsto theinterrogation work in china.

  The aim of this paper has two aspects: legal limits the definition of “threat, enticement, deception” interrogation “,puts forward the methods and ways to grasp the threat,enticement, deception” questioned the legitimacy of the. As everyone knows, Investigation and interrogation confrontational obvious characteristics, to the criminal confessed, is bound to apply to various strategies in interrogation, including “threats, enticement, deception”strategy. Not all the “threat in judicial practice, enticement,deception” interrogation methods damage the legitimacy of the confession, not all the “threat, enticement,deceit” can lead to false confessions. “The threat, enticement, deceit” interrogation methods islike a double-edged sword, in theplay to its special effects. At the same time, if beyondthelegal limits will bring infinite harm, will not only infringes upon the lawful rights and interests of the interrogation of a criminal suspect, will damage the image of country and judicial dignity, so on investigation “ interrogation methods make the legal justification of the definition, with the greatest degree of draw on the advantages and avoid disadvantages, to ensure that the work of investigation in the amended Criminal ProcedureLaw under the background of the smooth development of.This paper mainly uses the literature material law,experience summary method.

  Combining theory and practice method etc. In the stage of reading researchliterature,collecting and studying a large number of well-known domestic and foreign literatures, the author unifies own investigation practice experience, in instructs under teacher's help, we first use value analysis method to do the overall value of ”threat, enticement, deception“ interrogation methods, a second with the study of comparative law analysis of USA etc. the main representative current situation of legislation on ”national threat, enticement, deception“ interrogation admissible and its limits, finally analysis method was used to analysis the legal limits, lure, duplicity interrogation threats, and puts forwardthe correct grasp of ”threat, enticement,deception“ methods and ways of questioning the legitimacy of the judicial practice.

  Keywords: Threat; enticement; deceit;Interrogaive Tactics;legal limits
 

  目 录

  ABSTRACT ……I

  一、绪论……1

  (一)课题研究背景及其意义……1

  1.课题研究的背景…… 1

  2.课题研究的意义…… 1

  (二)国内外研究现状……2

  1.国内研究现状…… 2

  2.国外研究现状…… 3

  二、威胁、引诱、欺骗讯问方法的内涵……5

  (一)威胁、引诱、欺骗的含义……5

  (二)威胁、引诱、欺骗的表现形式……5

  1.“威胁”的具体表现…… 6

  2.“引诱”的具体表现…… 6

  3.“欺骗”的具体表现…… 7

  三、威胁、引诱、欺骗性讯问的价值分析……8

  (一)威胁、引诱、欺骗讯问方法的立法规定和实践状态……8

  1.立法规定…… 8

  2.司法实践存在状态…… 8

  3.立法规定与司法实践冲突的分析…… 9

  (二)正确适用威胁、引诱、欺骗讯问符合侦查谋略正当性……11

  1.正确适用威胁、引诱、欺骗讯问方法符合侦查规律…… 11

  2.正确适用威胁、引诱、欺骗讯问方法符合道德标准…… 11

  3.正确适用威胁、引诱、欺骗讯问方法获得的未必是虚假供述…… 12

  (三)不当适用威胁、引诱、欺骗讯问具有社会危害性……12

  1.侵犯了公民的人身权利和合法权益,破坏社会主义法制…… 13

  2.容易造成冤假错案,致使法律失去公平…… 13

  3.严重损害司法机关的社会公信力,影响社会稳定…… 14

  四、威胁、引诱、欺骗性讯问的容许性分析……15

  (一)大陆法系和英美法系国家威胁、引诱、欺骗性讯问容许性分析……15

  1.立法部分限制型…… 15

  2.司法裁量型…… 16

  (二)我国威胁、引诱、欺骗性讯问的容许性分析……17

  1.从法律制度方面分析…… 17

  2.从刑事政策方面分析…… 18

  3.从司法实践方面分析…… 19

  (三)关于“威胁、引诱、欺骗”讯问是否会违背自白任意性规则问题……19

  (四)我国关于“威胁、引诱、欺骗”讯问方法的限制……21

  1.“欺骗”方法的限制…… 21

  2.“引诱”方法的限制…… 22

  3.“威胁”方法的限制…… 22

  五、正确适用威胁、引诱、欺骗讯问方法分析……24

  (一)正确适用威胁、引诱、欺骗讯问方法的基本原则……24

  1.遵循法定性原则…… 24

  2.遵循真实性原则…… 25

  3.遵循合理性原则…… 26

  (二)正确适用威胁、引诱、欺骗讯问方法的具体操作要点……27

  1.正确掌握威胁讯问方法的操作要点…… 27

  2.正确掌握引诱讯问方法的操作要点…… 28

  3.正确掌握欺骗讯问方法的操作要点…… 28

  (三)正确适用威胁、引诱、欺骗讯问方法的技巧……29

  1.告知合法权益,以取代虚假承诺…… 29

  2.进行逻辑分析,以取代指供诱供…… 30

  3.告知法律后果,以取代威胁恐吓…… 31

  4.善用事实迷惑,以取代欺骗误导…… 31

  5.善用表达适度情绪,以取代尊严损害…… 32

  结束语……34

  参考文献……35

  致谢……37

返回本篇论文导航
相关内容推荐
相关标签:
返回:法律硕士论文