论文部分内容阅读
我国法律没有规定刑事案件侦查讯问时同步录音录像的性质,所以对于同步录音的认识不一。这种情况已经对同步录音录像的规范运用产生重要的影响。基于实证调研的数据,可以对同步录音录像制度在实务中的运行状况、程序规范、存在的问题、同步录音录像的实务运用与效用进行全面的梳理。在此基础上,对同步录音录像性质与定位的争议等问题进行了回应。同步录音录像可作为侦查讯问行为合法性证据和口供补强证据,但一般情况下不能作为案件实体事实的证据。
Our country law does not stipulate the nature of simultaneous recording and recording of criminal cases when interrogating and interrogating, so different understanding of synchronous recording. This situation has already had a significant impact on the standardization of simultaneous recording and recording. Based on the empirical research data, we can comprehensively review the actual operation and utility of simultaneous recording and recording system in the practice of operational status, program specifications, existing problems, simultaneous recording and recording. On this basis, the issues of the nature of the simultaneous recording and recording and the controversy of the location were responded. Simultaneous recording and video recording can be used as evidence of legitimacy and confession of investigative interrogation, but in general, it can not be used as evidence of the fact of the case.