论文部分内容阅读
犯罪嫌疑人、被告人的供述和辩解在司法实践中统称口供。口供是法定证据之一。在传统的证据分类中,它一直被当成证明力极强的直接证据。由于这一证据形式在刑事诉讼活动中大量存在,其作用及证据效力历来倍受关注。实践中,有不少侦查人员过分倚重口供,夸大口供在刑事诉讼中尤其是在侦查破案阶段的作用,有的抱持口供是“证据之王”的观点,甚至不惜以刑讯逼供等非法手段获取口供。随着刑事诉讼法的修改实施,笔者认为,对口供的作用及证据效力有必要予以重新、全面审视,以进一步澄清侦查人员思想上的模糊认识,尽快纠正业已普遍形成的办案思维定式,并在此基础上逐步调整改进刑侦工作方式,顺应刑事诉讼民主化、科学化进程的要求。
Confessions and excuses of criminal suspects and defendants are collectively referred to as confessions in judicial practice. Confession is one of the legal evidence. In the traditional classification of evidence, it has always been regarded as highly provably direct evidence. As this form of evidence is abundant in criminal proceedings, its role and the effectiveness of evidence have traditionally been of great concern. In practice, many investigators rely heavily on confessions to exaggerate the role of confessions in criminal prosecutions, especially in the investigation and prosecution. Some hold the confession as the “king of evidences” and even resort to illegal means such as torture Confession. With the amendment and implementation of the Criminal Procedure Law, the author believes that it is necessary to re-examine the validity of the confession and the effectiveness of the evidence to further clarify the ideological ambiguity of investigators and rectify the generally established pattern of handling thinking in handling cases. On this basis, we should gradually adjust and improve the work of criminal investigation and comply with the requirements of democratization and scientific progress in criminal proceedings.