本文選題：誘供騙供 + 偵訊方法�。� 參考：《山西大學(xué)》2017年碩士論文

【摘要】：我國(guó)《刑事訴訟法》一直以來(lái)對(duì)誘供騙供式取供行為都做出了禁止性規(guī)定,1979年《刑事訴訟法》和1996年《刑事訴訟法》皆規(guī)定“禁止以刑訊逼供、威脅、引誘、欺騙以及其他非法方法收集證據(jù)”,現(xiàn)行《刑事訴訟法》再此基礎(chǔ)上做了進(jìn)一步規(guī)定,即“采用刑訊逼供等非法方法收集的犯罪嫌疑人、被告人供述應(yīng)當(dāng)予以排除”,然而對(duì)以誘供騙供方式獲取的證據(jù)如何處理卻未作出明確的規(guī)定,最高院出臺(tái)的司法解釋對(duì)刑訊逼供等的“等”字的內(nèi)容做出了解釋,卻也并未包含誘供騙供的任何內(nèi)容,這種模糊式的立法規(guī)定使得偵查機(jī)關(guān)工作人員對(duì)誘供騙供行為的風(fēng)險(xiǎn)后果不予以重視,導(dǎo)致實(shí)踐中出現(xiàn)了很多越界的偵訊手段。誘供騙供式的取證方法與合法的訊問(wèn)技巧之間界限不清,執(zhí)法效率和執(zhí)法公正之間的沖突不斷,使得以誘供、騙供方式獲得的供述陷入了“立法上禁止,解釋中排除,偵訊中常見(jiàn),審判中漠視,社會(huì)中寬容”的尷尬境地。誘供騙供作為偵查階段的訊問(wèn)方法,對(duì)于突破嫌疑人的口供進(jìn)而偵破案件具有一定的積極的作用,但是偵查謀略運(yùn)用不當(dāng)導(dǎo)致的越界誘供和騙供行為卻可能會(huì)造成極大的危險(xiǎn)。為了降低誘供騙供行為帶來(lái)的風(fēng)險(xiǎn),對(duì)此類行為進(jìn)行規(guī)制具有極其重要的意義。筆者通過(guò)查閱文獻(xiàn)資料和研究案例,對(duì)誘供騙供行為做了具體分析,將本文分為五個(gè)部分進(jìn)行介紹:第一部分對(duì)誘供騙供行為做了概念界定。誘供是使用引誘的手段獲取嫌疑人的有罪供述,騙供是使用欺騙的手段詐取嫌疑人的有罪供述,同樣作為訊問(wèn)手段,二者都具有直接性、虛假性、狡詐性和隱秘性的特點(diǎn)。誘供和騙供有不同的表現(xiàn)形式,據(jù)此可以劃分為不同的類別,筆者以結(jié)果和內(nèi)容的真實(shí)性以及引誘的手段為標(biāo)準(zhǔn),將誘供和騙供行為劃分為純粹的誘供、欺詐式誘供和純粹的騙供三種行為類型,純粹的誘供包括真實(shí)誘供、威脅式誘供和感情誘供三種,并在此基礎(chǔ)上進(jìn)一步將真實(shí)誘供和感情誘供界定為合法的訊問(wèn)策略,威脅式誘供、欺詐式誘供和純粹的騙供則屬于非法的誘供騙供形式。第二部分對(duì)誘供騙供行為在我國(guó)的相關(guān)立法和司法現(xiàn)狀做了具體分析。我國(guó)《刑事訴訟法》對(duì)誘供騙供行為做了禁止性規(guī)定,卻沒(méi)有明確具體的程序處理措施,這種標(biāo)簽式和模糊化的立法規(guī)定導(dǎo)致司法實(shí)踐中操作困難,出現(xiàn)了各種司法亂象。通過(guò)對(duì)我國(guó)的系列冤假錯(cuò)案進(jìn)行分析,可以看出誘供和騙供是虛假口供的源頭問(wèn)題,在各種因素的共同作用下,虛假口供順利進(jìn)入庭審并被采納,才導(dǎo)致出現(xiàn)了大量不可彌補(bǔ)的錯(cuò)誤。第三部分對(duì)誘供騙供行為產(chǎn)生的原因做了分析,“口供中心主義”嚴(yán)重扭曲了偵查人員的取證觀,進(jìn)而產(chǎn)生了非法取供行為,不徹底的證據(jù)立法使偵查人員的取供行為更為隨意,偵查訊問(wèn)制度不完善進(jìn)一步增加了偵查人員誘供和騙供的機(jī)會(huì),三者共同作用使得誘供和騙供行為在偵查實(shí)踐中大肆橫行。第四部分對(duì)誘供騙供行為的危險(xiǎn)性展開(kāi)論述。首先,誘供和騙供行為會(huì)產(chǎn)生虛假供述,影響案件的真實(shí)性,進(jìn)而導(dǎo)致一系列冤假錯(cuò)案出現(xiàn),即案件的真實(shí)性風(fēng)險(xiǎn);其次,欺騙和威脅本是惡性的偵查訊問(wèn)手段,會(huì)產(chǎn)生道德風(fēng)險(xiǎn);再次,冤假錯(cuò)案還會(huì)讓司法機(jī)關(guān)喪失誠(chéng)信,降低司法公信力,產(chǎn)生法律風(fēng)險(xiǎn),進(jìn)而造成社會(huì)秩序更加混亂,民眾對(duì)法律更加不信任,給法治社會(huì)的建設(shè)帶來(lái)巨大阻力,產(chǎn)生社會(huì)風(fēng)險(xiǎn)。最后,結(jié)合并借鑒國(guó)外的一些先進(jìn)做法,對(duì)我國(guó)的誘供騙供行為提出了一些規(guī)制的建議。首先,要從根源上轉(zhuǎn)變偵查人員的訴訟觀,將其取證行為引向正確的方向;其次,明確相關(guān)法律規(guī)定,解決與司法實(shí)踐相脫節(jié)的問(wèn)題;再次,完善我國(guó)的偵查訊問(wèn)制度,以期減少虛假口供的發(fā)生,防止冤假錯(cuò)案,更好地實(shí)現(xiàn)我國(guó)刑事訴訟法打擊犯罪和保障人權(quán)的任務(wù)。
[Abstract]:The criminal procedure law of China has always made a prohibitive provision on the act of entrenching confession and confession. In 1979, the criminal procedure law and the 1996 criminal procedure law stipulate "the prohibition of extorting confessions by torture, threats, lure, deception and other illegal methods to collect evidence". The current "Criminal Procedure Law" has made further provisions on the basis of the current law of criminal procedure. That is, "the criminal suspects collected by the illegal methods of extorting the confession by torture and other illegal methods should be excluded". However, there is no clear regulation on how to deal with the evidence obtained by the way of confession and confession. The judicial interpretation issued by the Supreme Court has explained the content of the word "and so on" for extorting the confession by torture, but it does not contain a confession. Any content of the fraud, this kind of fuzzy legislative provisions makes the investigators of the investigative organs do not pay attention to the risk consequences of the act of cheating and confession, which leads to the emergence of a lot of interrogation methods in practice. As a result, the confession obtained in the way of confession and fraud has fallen into the embarrassment of "legislative prohibition, exclusion in the interpretation, common detection, indifference in trial, and tolerance in society". In order to reduce the risk of the act of confession and confession, it is of great significance to regulate such behavior. In order to reduce the risk caused by the act of confession and confession, the author makes a specific analysis of the act of confession and confession by consulting literature and research cases, and divides this article into five Part one is introduced: the first part defines the concept of the act of inducing the confession and confession. The confession is to use the means of temptation to obtain the guilty confession of the suspect, and the fraud is to cheat the suspect's confession by means of deception, and also as a means of interrogation, the two have the characteristics of direct, false, cunning and concealment. There are different forms of expression, which can be divided into different categories. The author divides the confession and fraudulent supply behavior into pure confession, fraudulent confession and pure fraud for three types of behavior, with the authenticity of results and content as well as the means of temptation. Pure confession, including real confession, threatening confession and emotional confession, three On this basis, the real and emotional confession is further defined as a legal interrogation strategy, the threat of confession, fraudulent confession and pure fraud are illegal confession forms. The second part makes a specific analysis of the related legislation and judicial present in our country. For the prohibition of the act of confession, there is no specific procedure to deal with. This kind of label type and fuzzy legislative provisions lead to difficult operation in judicial practice and various judicial disturbances. Through the analysis of a series of false false cases in our country, we can see that the source of confession and fraud is the problem of the source of false confession. Under the joint action of the factors, the false confession entered the trial and was adopted, which led to a large number of irreparable mistakes. The third part analyses the reasons for the causes of the confession and confession, and the "confession centralism" seriously distorts the investigator's view of obtaining evidence. The law makes the investigator's behavior more arbitrary, the investigation and interrogation system is not perfect, which further increases the opportunity for the investigators to induce and deceive the supply. The joint effect of the three makes the confession and cheating act wantonly in the investigation practice. The fourth part discusses the danger of the act of confession and confession. First, the act of entrapment and fraud will be produced. False statements, which affect the authenticity of the case, lead to a series of false and false cases, that is, the real risk of the case; secondly, deception and threat are malignant investigation and interrogation means, which will produce moral hazard. Again, injustice and false case will let the judicial organ lose credibility, reduce the judicial credibility, produce legal risk, and then cause social rank. The preface is more chaotic, the people are more distrust of the law, bring great resistance to the construction of the rule of law society and produce social risks. Finally, combining with some advanced foreign practices and drawing lessons from foreign countries, some suggestions are put forward to regulate the act of confession and confession in our country. The correct direction; secondly, to clarify the relevant laws and regulations to solve the problem of disconnection with the judicial practice; again, to improve our investigation and interrogation system, in order to reduce the occurrence of false confession, to prevent wrongful false cases, and to better realize the task of China's criminal procedure law to combat crime and protect human rights.
【學(xué)位授予單位】：山西大學(xué)
【學(xué)位級(jí)別】：碩士
【學(xué)位授予年份】：2017
【分類號(hào)】：D925.2

【參考文獻(xiàn)】

相關(guān)期刊論文 前10條

1 秦宗文;;刑事隱蔽性證據(jù)規(guī)則研究[J];法學(xué)研究;2016年03期

2 李昌盛;;錯(cuò)案的軌跡:以虛假供述為中心[J];中國(guó)人民公安大學(xué)學(xué)報(bào)(社會(huì)科學(xué)版);2015年06期

3 汪偉忠;尹學(xué)誠(chéng);;反貪偵查謀略與非法偵查行為辨析[J];犯罪研究;2015年01期

4 譚勇;;誘供對(duì)事實(shí)認(rèn)定的影響——以法官事實(shí)認(rèn)定為視角[J];光華法學(xué);2014年01期

5 蔣鵬飛;;欺詐性偵查合法性評(píng)價(jià)的法律規(guī)范系統(tǒng)之理想構(gòu)建[J];法治研究;2014年04期

6 張成敏;;論誘供與作弊審查[J];貴州警官職業(yè)學(xué)院學(xué)報(bào);2014年01期

7 龍宗智;;我國(guó)非法口供排除的“痛苦規(guī)則”及相關(guān)問(wèn)題[J];政法論壇;2013年05期

8 陳聞高;;關(guān)于誘供問(wèn)題的探討[J];湖北警官學(xué)院學(xué)報(bào);2012年07期

9 李_g;;刑事訊問(wèn)的十個(gè)誤區(qū)及其應(yīng)對(duì)[J];江西警察學(xué)院學(xué)報(bào);2012年03期

10 吳紀(jì)奎;;心理強(qiáng)制時(shí)代的偵查訊問(wèn)規(guī)制[J];環(huán)球法律評(píng)論;2009年03期

相關(guān)博士學(xué)位論文 前2條

1 閆召華;口供中心主義評(píng)析[D];西南政法大學(xué);2012年

2 胡志風(fēng);刑事錯(cuò)案與偵查程序研究[D];中國(guó)政法大學(xué);2011年

相關(guān)碩士學(xué)位論文 前7條

1 劉勁博;偵查行為視角下冤案防范的制度空間[D];華東政法大學(xué);2016年

2 朱思苒;虛假供述誘發(fā)冤案現(xiàn)象及對(duì)策研究[D];蘇州大學(xué);2016年

3 朱林;論偵查階段律師辯護(hù)權(quán)的行使[D];云南大學(xué);2015年

4 洪淡玉;論威脅、引誘、欺騙性訊問(wèn)的法律界限[D];華南理工大學(xué);2014年

5 母志文;檢察引導(dǎo)偵查制度研究[D];遼寧大學(xué);2013年

6 陳琳;論我國(guó)看守所的中立化[D];西南政法大學(xué);2012年

7 叢東;刑事偵查訊問(wèn)制度的程序性法律規(guī)制[D];華東政法大學(xué);2010年

，

本文編號(hào)：2000305