本文選題：刑訊逼供 + 中美��； 參考：《南京大學》2012年碩士論文

【摘要】：刑訊逼供的產(chǎn)生是由人類的自然屬性和暴力本能決定的,所以從司法活動在人類歷史上出現(xiàn)的第一天起,刑訊逼供便如影隨形,其實質是人類暴力在司法活動中的展現(xiàn)。 在古代社會(指奴隸社會和封建社會)由于物質技術條件的局限,統(tǒng)治者對刑訊逼供相對比較依賴。在人類進入資本主義社會以后,物質技術突飛猛進的發(fā)展導致社會控制模式發(fā)生重大轉變,政府對刑訊逼供不再像以前那么依賴,同時人們的人權意識日漸覺醒,社會對刑訊逼供的容忍度不斷降低。與這一轉變相對應,無論是在我國還是在西方,刑訊逼供都經(jīng)歷了由合法(放任、簡單規(guī)范)到非法(基本禁止或全面禁止)的轉變。當然,由于我國與美國迥異的歷史和文化傳統(tǒng),我國遏制刑訊逼供工作起步要比美國晚得多。 在人類社會進入20世紀以后(特別是第二次世界大戰(zhàn)以后),世界各國法治普遍發(fā)展,人權觀念在全球范圍內得到弘揚,遏制刑訊逼供已成為人們的共識。于是,各國紛紛出臺各種法律和政策,以遏制刑訊逼供,如美國法官通過判例確立和發(fā)展了無罪推定、不被強迫自證其罪特權、非法證據(jù)排除、米蘭達告誡等規(guī)則；我國專門規(guī)定了刑訊逼供罪及無罪推定原則,并陸續(xù)引進了國外的某些制度,如非法證據(jù)排除、不被強迫自證其罪等。但由于各國法治發(fā)展進程不一,故而其遏制刑訊逼供工作的進度及其當前所面臨的刑訊逼供問題的表現(xiàn)形態(tài)也不一樣,如美國遏制刑訊逼供工作開始的比我國早,其當前遏制刑訊逼供的重點是變相刑訊逼供①以及針對某些人群(有色人種)的刑訊逼供和在美國境外發(fā)生的刑訊逼供等。而我國真正開始遏制刑訊逼供工作是在文革以后,我國遏制刑訊逼供的重點還停留在暴力刑訊及體罰上。因此,我們在研究刑訊逼供問題時,有必要從縱向和橫向兩個向度對這一問題進行分析,只有這樣我們才能更好地認識刑訊逼供問題,把握其發(fā)展規(guī)律,從而更好地解決這一問題。 而美國作為現(xiàn)代法治國家的典范,眾多現(xiàn)代刑事訴訟原則是由美國確立的,其諸多法律思想及制度為其他國家認可和效仿,因此將我國與美國在遏制刑訊逼供問題上進行對比分析具有極為重要的理論價值和現(xiàn)實意義。它不僅可以讓我們對刑訊逼供的未來發(fā)展有更清醒的認識,也能讓我國在引進西方制度時能站在更高的高度,即在引進制度時不僅要了解其通盤理論和社會基礎,還要對其局限性有明確的認識。只有這樣才能使我國的法治建設發(fā)揮后發(fā)優(yōu)勢,少走彎路并走得更遠。
[Abstract]:The production of extorting confessions by torture is determined by human nature and violent instinct, so from the first day that judicial activities appear in human history, extorting confessions by torture is accompanied by images, and its essence is the manifestation of human violence in judicial activities. In ancient society (refers to slave society and feudal society) because of the limitation of material and technical conditions, rulers relatively rely on torture to extract confessions. After human beings entered the capitalist society, the rapid development of material technology led to a major change in the mode of social control, and the government was no longer as dependent on extorting confessions by torture as before, and at the same time, people's consciousness of human rights was awakening day by day. The tolerance of society to extort confessions by torture is decreasing. In our country or in the West, extorting confessions by torture has undergone a change from legal (laissez-faire, simple norm) to illegal (basic prohibition or total prohibition). Of course, because of the different historical and cultural traditions between China and the United States, China's efforts to curb extortion of confessions by torture started much later than in the United States. After the human society entered the 20th century (especially after the second World War), the rule of law in all countries in the world has developed generally, the concept of human rights has been carried forward in the global scope, and it has become a common understanding to curb the extortion of confessions by torture. As a result, various countries have issued various laws and policies to curb torture to extract confessions. For example, American judges established and developed the presumption of innocence through jurisprudence, were not forced to testify against themselves, the exclusion of illegal evidence, Miranda admonition and other rules; The crime of extorting confessions by torture and the principle of presumption of innocence have been specially stipulated in our country, and some foreign systems have been introduced one after another, such as the exclusion of illegal evidence, the crime of not being forced to testify against oneself, and so on. However, due to the different development processes of the rule of law in various countries, the progress of its efforts to curb the extortion of confessions by torture and the manifestation of the current problems of extorting confessions by torture are also different. For example, the United States began to suppress the extortion of confessions by torture earlier than our country. At present, the emphasis of restraining the extortion of confessions by torture is to extort confessions by torture in disguised form, to extract confessions by torture against certain groups of people (people of color) and to extort confessions by torture outside the United States. However, after the Cultural Revolution, the focus of our country on restraining the extortion of confessions by torture is still focused on violent torture and corporal punishment. Therefore, when we study the problem of extorting confessions by torture, it is necessary to analyze the problem from the vertical and horizontal angles. Only in this way can we better understand the problem of extorting confessions by torture and grasp its development law. In order to better solve this problem. The United States, as a model of a modern country ruled by law, has established many modern principles of criminal procedure by the United States, and many of its legal ideas and systems have been recognized and imitated by other countries. Therefore, it is of great theoretical value and practical significance to make a comparative analysis between China and the United States in curbing the problem of extorting confessions by torture. It not only enables us to have a more sober understanding of the future development of extorting confessions by torture, but also enables our country to stand at a higher level when introducing western systems, that is, when we introduce systems, we should not only understand their overall theory and social basis. There is also a clear understanding of its limitations. Only in this way can the construction of our country's rule of law bring into play the advantage of latecomer, less detours and go further.
【學位授予單位】：南京大學
【學位級別】：碩士
【學位授予年份】：2012
【分類號】：D925.2

【參考文獻】

相關期刊論文 前6條

1 左衛(wèi)民,周洪波;從合法到非法:刑訊逼供的語境分析[J];法學;2002年10期

2 王振川;;治一治刑訊逼供這一頑癥——談談刑訊逼供的成因、危害及其治理[J];人民檢察;2006年01期

3 陳衛(wèi)東;;確立非法證據(jù)排除規(guī)則 遏制刑訊逼供[J];人民檢察;2007年23期

4 吳丹紅;;該以怎樣的態(tài)度和措施遏制刑訊逼供[J];人民檢察;2010年05期

5 吳丹紅;;角色、情境與社會容忍 法社會學視野中的刑訊逼供[J];中外法學;2006年02期

6 王永杰;;程序異化的法社會學考察論綱(下篇)——以刑事冤案和刑事司法程序為視角[J];政治與法律;2007年04期

，

本文編號：1873320