Electronic Recording of Custodial Interrogations with Chinese Characteristics: Tool for Transparency or Torture?
Electronic Recording of Custodial Interrogations with Chinese Characteristics: Tool for Transparency or Torture?
复制标题
中国特色的羁押讯问电子录音：透明工具还是酷刑？
DOI：
--
复制
发表时间：
2015
期刊：
影响因子：
--
通讯作者：
D. Siegel
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Zhu Kuibin;D. Siegel
对拘留审讯进行电子录音已成为一种重要的技术，可用来查明警察虐待嫌疑犯和在审讯期间使用胁迫手段的情况，评估所谓供词的非自愿性，并防止世界各地警察的不当行为。中国自上而下的录音政策看起来很全面，也很透明，但与之相结合的是一个程序系统，让警察和检察官对录音和录音本身拥有几乎所有的控制权，以及一种法律的文化，在这种文化中，法院和警察将自己视为检察官的密切工作伙伴。本文追溯了羁押讯问电子录音在中国发展的三个阶段，从2005年开始的检察政策的有限试点阶段，到2010年通过新证据规则后其重要性的提高，以及2012年将其纳入修订后的刑事诉讼规则。接下来，本文展示了中国刑事司法系统的程序方面如何破坏记录作为防止警察不当行为的一种手段的有效性。文章然后调查了最近的中国学术，包括实证工作，批评记录的实施。最后，借鉴这个奖学金和改革的建议，以及以前的奖学金，认为律师的存在是必要的，以充分执行中国刑事被告人的许多程序性权利，文章显示如何记录将不会有效地作为一种手段，阻止酷刑和警察不当行为，如果没有强制性的律师在场拘留审讯。
Electronic recording of custodial interrogations has emerged as a significant technique to identify instances of police mistreatment of suspects and use of coercion during questioning, to evaluate the voluntariness of purported confessions and to prevent improper conduct by police throughout the world. China’s top-down policy of recording appears comprehensive and laudably transparent, but is combined with a procedural system that gives police and prosecutors virtually all control over recording and the recordings themselves, and a legal culture in which the courts and police see themselves as close working partners of prosecutors. The article traces the three stages in which electronic recording of custodial interrogation has developed in China, from a limited pilot phase of prosecutorial policy beginning in 2005, through its heightened significance after the 2010 adoption of new rules of evidence and its 2012 inclusion in the revised Rule of Criminal Procedure. Next, the article shows how procedural aspects of the Chinese criminal justice system undermine the effectiveness of recording as a means of preventing police misconduct. The article then surveys recent Chinese scholarship, including empirical work, which criticises the implementation of recording. Finally, drawing on this scholarship and its suggestions for reform, as well as prior scholarship arguing that the presence of counsel is necessary to fully enforce many of the procedural rights of Chinese criminal defendants, the article shows how recording will not be effective as a means of deterring torture and police misconduct without the mandatory physical presence of an attorney during custodial interrogations.