發(fā)布時(shí)間：2018-05-14 11:28

  本文選題：不得強(qiáng)迫自證己罪 + 原則�。� 參考：《吉林大學(xué)》2014年碩士論文

【摘要】：關(guān)于不得強(qiáng)迫自證己罪的規(guī)定最早出現(xiàn)于英國的法律當(dāng)中，隨后在其它國家也得到了很好的完善和發(fā)展。各個(gè)國家的法律對不得強(qiáng)迫自證己罪的表述都不同，其中聯(lián)合國制定的《公民權(quán)利和政治權(quán)利國際公約》中對不得強(qiáng)迫自證己罪的規(guī)定得到了公認(rèn)。大多數(shù)國家也都將不得強(qiáng)迫自證己罪作為公民的一項(xiàng)基本人權(quán)予以保障。不得強(qiáng)迫自證己罪在我國的發(fā)展進(jìn)程比較緩慢，直到2012年我國立法機(jī)關(guān)對《刑事訴訟法》修改之前，，除了在一些學(xué)者的法律建議稿中，在我國的法律條文中找不到關(guān)于不得強(qiáng)迫自證己罪的規(guī)定。本文以此次刑事訴訟法的修改為契機(jī)，對我國刑事訴訟法中的不得強(qiáng)迫自證己罪規(guī)則進(jìn)行研究。 文章通過中西對不得強(qiáng)迫自證己罪的對比解讀，分析中國法律中的不得強(qiáng)迫自證己罪。首先,文章闡述了不得強(qiáng)迫自證己罪在國外的規(guī)定,介紹了不得強(qiáng)迫自證己罪的起源、內(nèi)涵及地位。其次，文章以我國對不得強(qiáng)迫自證己罪的規(guī)定為視角，介紹了我國不得強(qiáng)迫自證己罪的確立過程及對不得強(qiáng)迫自證己罪的理解。最后，文章對中國不得強(qiáng)迫自證己罪規(guī)則不完善的原因作出了分析，主要是因?yàn)槲覈�之前和現(xiàn)在尚不具備適合不得強(qiáng)迫自證己罪發(fā)展的有利法制環(huán)境。 我國刑事訴訟法中的不得強(qiáng)迫自證己罪規(guī)定還存在著許多不完善的地方。雖然說我國此次刑事訴訟法修改，在法條中增加了體現(xiàn)不得強(qiáng)迫自證己罪精神的條款，但是，我國刑事訴訟法對不得強(qiáng)迫自證己罪的規(guī)定并非盡善盡美，還存在一些問題。文章主要在條文位置、適用范圍、例外規(guī)定、制度配套及不得強(qiáng)迫自證己罪與如實(shí)陳述規(guī)定之間關(guān)系這幾個(gè)方面對其在我國刑事訴訟法中存在的問題作了說明和解釋。 針對上文問題筆者提出了一些完善性建議。在文章最后闡述了不得強(qiáng)迫自證己罪規(guī)則的具體適用路徑，具體包括將不得強(qiáng)迫自證己罪規(guī)則上升為不得強(qiáng)迫自證己罪原則、明確其權(quán)利主體及保護(hù)客體、規(guī)定不得強(qiáng)迫自證己罪的例外情形和逐步確立沉默權(quán)制度。這幾個(gè)方面是在中國刑事訴訟法律中確立不得強(qiáng)迫自證己罪制度所必須面對和所要解決的問題。只有解決好這幾個(gè)問題，才能在我國刑事訴訟中更好地適用不得強(qiáng)迫自證己罪。
[Abstract]:The rule of forcible self-incrimination first appeared in the law of England, and then developed well in other countries. The law of each country is different in the expression of the crime of not forcing oneself to testify, and the stipulation of the crime of not forcing oneself to testify in the International Covenant on Civil and political Rights made by the United Nations has been generally accepted. In most countries, forcible self-incrimination is also guaranteed as a fundamental human right of citizens. The process of development of self-incriminating crimes in our country must not be forced to be relatively slow until 2012, before the legislature amended the Criminal procedure Law, except in the legal proposals of some scholars. We can not find the stipulation that no self-incriminating can be forced in our country. This article takes the amendment of the criminal procedure law as an opportunity to study the rule of non-compulsive self-incrimination in the criminal procedure law of our country. In this paper, the author analyzes the crime of forcible self-incrimination in Chinese law through the contrastive interpretation of non-compulsive self-incrimination between Chinese and western countries. First of all, the article expounds the provisions of forcible self-incrimination in foreign countries, and introduces the origin, connotation and status of self-incrimination. Secondly, from the point of view of our country's stipulation on the crime of forcible self-incrimination, this paper introduces the establishment process of self-incriminating crime and the understanding of self-incriminating crime of non-compulsive self-incrimination in our country. Finally, the paper analyzes the reasons why the rules of self-incrimination are not perfect in China, mainly because China did not have a favorable legal environment which is suitable for the development of self-incriminating crime before and at present. There are still many imperfections in the stipulation of non-compulsive self-incrimination in our criminal procedure law. Although the amendment of our country's criminal procedure law adds a clause to reflect the spirit of self-incriminating, but the stipulation of our criminal procedure law is not perfect, there are still some problems. The article explains and explains the problems existing in the criminal procedure law of our country from the following aspects: the position of the articles, the scope of application, the exception provisions, the system matching and the relationship between the self-incrimination and the truthfulness of the criminal procedure law. In view of the above question, the author puts forward some perfect suggestions. At the end of the article, the author expounds the specific application path of the rule of self-incrimination, including elevating the rule of non-compulsive self-incrimination to the principle of non-compulsion of self-incrimination, clarifying the subject of right and the object of protection. The exception of self-incriminating crime and the establishment of the right to silence system are stipulated. These aspects are the problems that must be faced and solved to establish the system of self-incriminating in Chinese criminal procedure law. Only by solving these problems can we apply the crime of self-incrimination in our criminal procedure.
【學(xué)位授予單位】：吉林大學(xué)
【學(xué)位級別】：碩士
【學(xué)位授予年份】：2014
【分類號】：D925.2

【參考文獻(xiàn)】

相關(guān)期刊論文 前10條

1 易延友;論反對自我歸罪的特權(quán)[J];比較法研究;1999年02期

2 鄭金火;;論“反對強(qiáng)迫自證其罪”原則[J];廈門大學(xué)法律評論;2001年01期

3 薛潮平;;在亮點(diǎn)與盲點(diǎn)之間——論“不證實(shí)自己有罪”的規(guī)范對比與沖突[J];證據(jù)科學(xué);2012年02期

4 楊宇冠;;《刑事訴訟法》修改凸顯人權(quán)保障——論不得強(qiáng)迫自證有罪和非法證據(jù)排除條款[J];法學(xué)雜志;2012年05期

5 陳光中;;刑事訴訟法再修改若干問題之展望[J];法學(xué);2008年06期

6 吳宏耀;;反對強(qiáng)迫自證其罪特權(quán)原則的引入與制度構(gòu)建[J];法學(xué);2008年06期

7 谷志平;張玉霞;;我國反對強(qiáng)迫自證其罪原則的制度構(gòu)建[J];法制與社會(huì);2006年17期

8 滕健;劉昂;;論不得強(qiáng)迫自證其罪的本土化[J];中國人民公安大學(xué)學(xué)報(bào)(社會(huì)科學(xué)版);2008年04期

9 陳學(xué)權(quán);;比較法視野下我國不被強(qiáng)迫自證其罪之解釋[J];比較法研究;2013年05期

10 樊崇義;;從“應(yīng)當(dāng)如實(shí)回答”到“不得強(qiáng)迫自證其罪”[J];法學(xué)研究;2008年02期

本文編號：1887677