讯问中录音录像制度适用问题研究——以念斌案为视角

发布时间：2018-01-19 12:08

本文关键词： 录音录像证据种类证据能力证明力程序性证明　出处：《北京理工大学学报(社会科学版)》2016年04期 　论文类型：期刊论文

【摘要】：讯问中录音录像制度对于规范讯问行为、保障犯罪嫌疑人权益具有重要意义。讯问中录音录像的证据种类归属不清、审查机制不健全、程序性制裁阙如等问题,给司法实践造成诸多混乱。念斌案中存在这些问题。讯问中录音录像在证明程序性事实时属于视听资料,证明实体性事实时属于供述,其双重属性具有层次性。对于严重违反录音录像制度的行为,应给予程序性制裁、否定其证据能力。在与讯问笔录存在实质性差异的情况下,录音录像具有比讯问笔录更强的证明力。以录音录像所记载的供述内容作为定案根据时,仍然应遵循口供补强规则。
[Abstract]:Audio and video recording system in interrogation is of great significance in regulating interrogation behavior and protecting the rights and interests of criminal suspects. The categories of audio and video recording evidence in interrogation are not clear, the examination mechanism is not perfect, and procedural sanctions are lacking. To the judicial practice caused a lot of confusion. There are these problems in the case of Nianbin. Audio and video recording in the interrogation is audio-visual material to prove the procedural facts, and to prove the substantive facts is a confession. For serious violations of the audio and video recording system, procedural sanctions should be imposed to deny its evidentiary ability. Audio and video recordings are more provable than interrogations. When the statements recorded in the audio and video recordings are taken as the basis of the decision, the rules of reinforcement of confessions should still be followed.
【作者单位】：吉林大学法学院;
【基金】：国家社科基金青年项目资助“刑事简易程序实证研究”(15CFX031) 中国法学会重点专项课题“推进以审判为中心的诉讼制度改革”(CLS2015C07) 吉林大学廉政建设专项研究课题“纪检监察与刑事司法衔接机制研究”(2014LZY017)
【分类号】：D925.2
【正文快照】： 中国《刑事诉讼法》第121条规定了讯问中录音录像制度。但讯问中录音录像存在证据种类归属不清、审查机制不健全、程序性制裁阙如等问题,这些问题也出现在念斌案1中。念斌案最终因福建省高级人民法院以事实不清、证据不足为由改判无罪,而被社会各界誉为“法治标本”[1]。一、

【相似文献】