论文部分内容阅读
普通法以捍卫个人自由的程度引以为傲,它的证据法极其严格地将道听途说的东西排除于证据之外,并声称保护个人不自证其罪。看来似乎自相矛盾的是,同一个证据法却许可接受被告供述,将被告人所作的关于犯罪的供述作为证据。有关供述的法律也还有其他矛盾百出的现象,已经引起了人们近乎绝望的反应。近年来,英国和澳大利亚的立法力图解决该法律所存在的这些问题,但并未取得成功。刑法证据修订委员会的第十一次报告以及根据该报告所制定的法案包含了若干建议,这些建议可能对该法律作出实质性的修改。
The common law takes pride in the degree of defense of individual liberty, and its law of evidence is extremely strict in excluding hearsay from evidence and claims that protecting individuals is not self-incriminating. It seems paradoxical that the same law of evidence permits the defendant to confess the accused’s testimony about the crime. Laws on confessions also have other contradictory phenomena that have aroused people’s almost desperate reaction. In recent years, the legislation of Britain and Australia has tried to solve these problems existing in the law, but it has not succeeded. The eleventh report of the Criminal Law Evidence Revision Commission and the bills established under the report contain a number of recommendations that could make substantive changes to the law.