重复供述排除规则探究
|
摘要
针对重复供述是否排除以及如何排除的问题,理论界一直有所争议,司法实践中做法不一。2017年最高人民法院、最高人民检察院、公安部、国家安全部、司法部联合发布《关于办理刑事案件严格排除非法证据若干问题的规定》确立了重复供述排除规则,使重复供述排除具备了直接的规范依据。但重复供述排除规则在制度规范层面与实践运行中仍存在较多的不足。为切实发挥其保障人权、制约权力的功能,应对重复供述排除范围予以扩展,并对办案机关的证据理念、办案方式及相关配套制度予以调整及完善。
The theoretical circles have been controversial about whether the repeated confessions are excluded and how to eliminate them. There are different practices in judicial practice. In 2017,the "Regulations on the Strict Exclusion of Illegal Evidence in Criminal Cases",jointly issued by the Supreme People's Court,the Supreme People's Procuratorate,the Ministry of Public Security,the Ministry of National Security and the Ministry of Justice,established exclusion rules of repeated confessions,which made the repeated confessions have direct standard basis. However,there are still many deficiencies in the system norms and practices in the exclusion rules of repeated confessions. In order to give full play to its functions of safeguarding human rights and restricting power,the scope of exclusion of repeated confessions should be expanded,and the evidence concept,handling methods and related supporting systems of the case-handling agencies should be adjusted and improved.
The theoretical circles have been controversial about whether the repeated confessions are excluded and how to eliminate them. There are different practices in judicial practice. In 2017,the "Regulations on the Strict Exclusion of Illegal Evidence in Criminal Cases",jointly issued by the Supreme People's Court,the Supreme People's Procuratorate,the Ministry of Public Security,the Ministry of National Security and the Ministry of Justice,established exclusion rules of repeated confessions,which made the repeated confessions have direct standard basis. However,there are still many deficiencies in the system norms and practices in the exclusion rules of repeated confessions. In order to give full play to its functions of safeguarding human rights and restricting power,the scope of exclusion of repeated confessions should be expanded,and the evidence concept,handling methods and related supporting systems of the case-handling agencies should be adjusted and improved.
引文
[1]谢小剑.重复供述的排除规则研究[J].法学论坛,2012(01):110-115.
[2]左卫民.“热”与“冷”:非法证据排除规则适用的实证研究[J].中国检察官,2015(03):151-160.
[3]闫召华.重复供述排除问题研究[J].现代法学,2013(02):125-134.
[4]万春,高翼飞.刑事案件非法证据排除规则的发展——《关于办理刑事案件排除非法证据若干问题的的规定》新亮点[J].中国刑事法杂志,2017(04):15-29.
[5]陈瑞华.什么是真正的直接和言词原则[J].证据科学,2016(03):266-269.
[6]陈瑞华.审判中心主义改革的理论反思[J].苏州大学学报,2017(01):34-43.
[7]李晓薇、赵古月、王建平、陆喜春诈骗二审刑事裁定书,(2017)吉01刑终373号.
[8]成毅非国家工作人员受贿罪二审刑事判决书,(2018)苏12刑终50号.
[9]陆超荣因原审被告人陆海欣犯盗窃罪、掩饰、隐瞒犯罪所得罪申诉一案刑事通知书,(2016)粤刑申345号.
[10]张道庚陈进伟等走私、贩卖、运输、制造毒品一审刑事判决书,(2017)渝02刑初31号.
[11]陈峰.排除重复自白的实务困境与应对思路[J].人民司法,2015(01):80-83.
[12]邹致达强奸二审刑事判决书,(2017)闽08刑终274号.
[13]朱某走私、贩卖、运输、制造毒品二审刑事裁定书,(2017)鲁02刑终555号.
[14]闵春雷等.东北三省检察机关实施刑事诉讼法情况的调研报告[J].国家检察官学院学报,2014(03):33-53.
[15]陈瑞华.非法证据排除程序的理论展开[J].比较法学,2018(01):1-15.
[16]孙长永,王彪.审判阶段非法证据排除问题实证考察[J].现代法学,2014(1):72-83.
[17]魏景峰.关于在我国建立律师在场制度的思考[J].人民法治,2017(6):7-9.
[18]陈在上.比较法视域下的律师在场权悖论释义与制度构建[J].河北法学,2017(03):75-88.
[19]陈瑞华.有效辩护问题的再思考[J],当代法学,2017(06):3-13.
[2]左卫民.“热”与“冷”:非法证据排除规则适用的实证研究[J].中国检察官,2015(03):151-160.
[3]闫召华.重复供述排除问题研究[J].现代法学,2013(02):125-134.
[4]万春,高翼飞.刑事案件非法证据排除规则的发展——《关于办理刑事案件排除非法证据若干问题的的规定》新亮点[J].中国刑事法杂志,2017(04):15-29.
[5]陈瑞华.什么是真正的直接和言词原则[J].证据科学,2016(03):266-269.
[6]陈瑞华.审判中心主义改革的理论反思[J].苏州大学学报,2017(01):34-43.
[7]李晓薇、赵古月、王建平、陆喜春诈骗二审刑事裁定书,(2017)吉01刑终373号.
[8]成毅非国家工作人员受贿罪二审刑事判决书,(2018)苏12刑终50号.
[9]陆超荣因原审被告人陆海欣犯盗窃罪、掩饰、隐瞒犯罪所得罪申诉一案刑事通知书,(2016)粤刑申345号.
[10]张道庚陈进伟等走私、贩卖、运输、制造毒品一审刑事判决书,(2017)渝02刑初31号.
[11]陈峰.排除重复自白的实务困境与应对思路[J].人民司法,2015(01):80-83.
[12]邹致达强奸二审刑事判决书,(2017)闽08刑终274号.
[13]朱某走私、贩卖、运输、制造毒品二审刑事裁定书,(2017)鲁02刑终555号.
[14]闵春雷等.东北三省检察机关实施刑事诉讼法情况的调研报告[J].国家检察官学院学报,2014(03):33-53.
[15]陈瑞华.非法证据排除程序的理论展开[J].比较法学,2018(01):1-15.
[16]孙长永,王彪.审判阶段非法证据排除问题实证考察[J].现代法学,2014(1):72-83.
[17]魏景峰.关于在我国建立律师在场制度的思考[J].人民法治,2017(6):7-9.
[18]陈在上.比较法视域下的律师在场权悖论释义与制度构建[J].河北法学,2017(03):75-88.
[19]陈瑞华.有效辩护问题的再思考[J],当代法学,2017(06):3-13.