讯问录音录像:功能定位与司法适用——以刑事诉讼制度改革为背景

发布时间：2018-01-08 15:33

本文关键词：讯问录音录像:功能定位与司法适用——以刑事诉讼制度改革为背景　出处：《西南民族大学学报(人文社会科学版)》2014年10期 　论文类型：期刊论文

【摘要】：从比较法角度,讯问录音录像大体上可以区分为保障供述自愿性与事实证明两大功能范畴。功能定位的不同,决定了讯问录音录像运用规则的差异。借鉴美国、英国和我国台湾地区的立法与司法经验,对于违反讯问录音录像程序的口供,应区分任意性录音录像与强制性录音录像采取不同的救济方式;当录音录像与笔录内容实质上不一致时,应采纳真实性较强的录音录像而排除虚假性较强的笔录内容。我们还应进一步探索和论证我国讯问录音录像的功能定位,在此基础上构建录音录像运用规则体系,最大程度地发挥它在保障供述自愿性和事实证明方面的效用,进一步提高我国刑事证据制度在人权保障和犯罪控制方面的水平。
[Abstract]:From the perspective of comparative law, audiovisual recording of interrogations can be broadly divided into two functional categories: voluntary confession and factual proof. The difference of functional orientation determines the differences in the rules of the use of audiovisual recordings of interrogations and draws lessons from the United States. In the legislative and judicial experience of Britain and Taiwan, different remedies should be taken between arbitrary audio and video recordings and compulsory audio and video recordings for confessions that violate the procedure of audiovisual interrogation. When the recording and recording are materially inconsistent. We should adopt audio and video recording with strong authenticity and eliminate the false recording content. We should also further explore and demonstrate the functional orientation of audiovisual recording of interrogation in our country. On the basis of this, the author constructs a system of audio and video recording application rules to maximize its effectiveness in safeguarding the voluntary nature of confession and the proof of facts. We will further improve our criminal evidence system in terms of human rights protection and crime control.
【作者单位】：四川大学法学院;
【基金】：司法部国家法治与法学理论研究项目“审讯权力控制的新模式”(12SFB2034) 教育部“新世纪优秀人才支持计划”(NCET-11-0346)阶段性成果
【分类号】：D925.2
【正文快照】： 20世纪80年代以来,英、美等国和我国台湾地区相继建立了讯问同步录音录像制度,强化了对警察讯问权力的监督。在英国,根据《1984年警察与刑事证据法》第60条之授权,内政部先后于1988年和2002年颁布实施《警察与刑事证据法》守则E(即《会见嫌疑人录音操作守则》)和守则F(即《会

【参考文献】