沉默权问题在学术界已不再是新鲜的讨论话题，但是对被告人选择放弃沉默权后的说谎行为处理方式的探讨却十分稀少。笔者认为，对被告人说谎行为的规制方式不同会对其的定罪量刑和人权保障产生不可忽视的影响。因此，对被告人的说谎权问题进行探讨和研究也就成为一个必要的论题。 纵观各国刑事诉讼法立法，针对法官主持的讯问中被告人的说谎行为有两种规制模式。一种是英美法国家规定被告人一旦选择放弃沉默权而进行陈述，其就具备证人身份，同时也需承担证人的真实供述义务，否则就有被判处伪证罪的可能；另一种则是大陆法国家的规定，被告人并不因虚假供述而受伪证罪的处罚，相当于赋予其一项“说谎豁免权”。本文正是对此二种不同的规制模式进...Right to silence is no longer fresh discussion in academia, but discussion on regulation on defendants' lies after they chose to give up the right to silence is very scarce. I believe that the different regulations on defendants' lies would produce a negligible impact on the conviction and sentencing and human rights protection. Therefore, this is an essential topic to explore and research the def...学位：法律硕士院系专业：法律硕士教育中心_法律硕士(JM)学号：1302011115029

王玥

Xiamen University Institutional Repository

学校编码：10384 分类号_______密级 ______学号：13020111150296 UDC ______硕 士 学 位 论 文真实供述义务抑或“说谎豁免权”之选择——以两大法系比较分析为切入点The Choice of the Liability of Telling the Truth or "LyingImmunity"王玥答辩委员会主席：评 阅 人：2014年 月指导教师姓名： 刘 学 敏 副 教 授专 业 名 称： 法 律 硕 士论文提交日期： 2 0 1 4 年 月论文答辩时间： 2 0 1 4 年 月学位授予日期： 2 0 1 4 年 月厦门大学博硕士论文摘要库厦门大学博硕士论文摘要库厦门大学学位论文原创性声明本人呈交的学位论文是本人在导师指导下，独立完成的研究成果。本人在论文写作中参考其他个人或集体已经发表的研究成果，均在文中以适当方式明确标明，并符合法律规范和《厦门大学研究生学术活动规范（试行）》。另外，该学位论文为（ ）课题（组）的研究成果，获得（ ）课题（组）经费或实验室的资助，在（ ）实验室完成。（请在以上括号内填写课题或课题组负责人或实验室名称，未有此项声明内容的，可以不作特别声明。）声明人（签名）：年 月 日厦门大学博硕士论文摘要库厦门大学博硕士论文摘要库厦门大学学位论文著作权使用声明本人同意厦门大学根据《中华人民共和国学位条例暂行实施办法》等规定保留和使用此学位论文，并向主管部门或其指定机构送交学位论文（包括纸质版和电子版），允许学位论文进入厦门大学图书馆及其数据库被查阅、借阅。本人同意厦门大学将学位论文加入全国博士、硕士学位论文共建单位数据库进行检索，将学位论文的标题和摘要汇编出版，采用影印、缩印或者其它方式合理复制学位论文。本学位论文属于：（ ）1。经厦门大学保密委员会审查核定的保密学位论文，于 年 月 日解密，解密后适用上述授权。（ ）2。不保密，适用上述授权。（请在以上相应括号内打“√”或填上相应内容。保密学位论文应是已经厦门大学保密委员会审定过的学位论文，未经厦门大学保密委员会审定的学位论文均为公开学位论文。此声明栏不填写的，默认为公开学位论文，均适用上述授权。）声明人（签名）：年 月 日厦门大学博硕士论文摘要库厦门大学博硕士论文摘要库内容摘要沉默权问题在学术界已不再是新鲜的讨论话题，但是对被告人选择放弃沉默权后的说谎行为处理方式的探讨却十分稀少。笔者认为，对被告人说谎行为的规制方式不同会对其的定罪量刑和人权保障产生不可忽视的影响。因此，对被告人的说谎权问题进行探讨和研究也就成为一个必要的论题。纵观各国刑事诉讼法立法，针对法官主持的讯问中被告人的说谎行为有两种规制模式。一种是英美法国家规定被告人一旦选择放弃沉默权而进行陈述，其就具备证人身份，同时也需承担证人的真实供述义务，否则就有被判处伪证罪的可能；另一种则是大陆法国家的规定，被告人并不因虚假供述而受伪证罪的处罚，相当于赋予其一项“说谎豁免权”。本文正是对此二种不同的规制模式进行对比分析，从而对其有更深入的了解。本文一共分为三个部分：第一章是被告人的真实供述义务与“说谎豁免权”的基本理论概述，包括对此二者概念的理解及其价值功能的分析；第二章则是真实供述义务与“说谎豁免权”在两大法系国家的具体演变、立法和司法实践的展示，以及对两种选择的差异成因进行分析；最后一章结合我国司法制度的基本情况，思考我国对被告人的说谎行为时应当采用的方式，并通过立法和司法两个层面对其进行论述。关键词：被告人；真实供述义务；说谎豁免权厦门大学博硕士论文摘要库厦门大学博硕士论文摘要库ABSTRACTRight to silence is no longer fresh discussion in academia, but discussionon regulation on defendants' lies after they chose to give up the right to silenceis very scarce. I believe that the different regulations on defendants' lies wouldproduce a negligible impact on the conviction and sentencing and human rightsprotection. Therefore, this is an essential topic to explore and research thedefendant's right to lie.Throughout the criminal procedure legislation of countries, there are twodifferent systems of regulation on defendants' lies in interrogations presided bya judge: one is the countries of Anglo-American law regulations of the state,once the defendant choose to give up silent right and select statements, hewould be the witness identity, at the same time also has the liability of tellingthe truth of witness, otherwise will be disciplined by perjury; another is theprovision of civil law countries, the defendant is not punished because of falseconfessions and perjury, equivalent to entitle one a "lying immunity". Thispaper is compare the two different regulation pattern analysis, to have a deeperunderstanding to it.This article is divided into three parts altogether, respectively is: the firstchapter is summary of the basic theory of "the liability of telling the truth" and"lying immunity". Including the analysis of this understanding of the conceptsand value of the two functions; the second chapter is the specific evolution, thedisplay of legislation and judicial practice of "the liability of telling the truth"and "lying immunity" in two legal systems, as well as the causes of differencesbetween the two selected for analysis; last chapter by comparing with theprevious analysis, combining the basic situation of China's judicial system, andthen think about lying to the defendants' behavior in our country should adoptthe way, and to be discussed by the legislative and judicial levels.厦门大学博硕士论文摘要库Key Words: Defendant; The Liability of Telling the Truth; “Lying Immunity”厦门大学博硕士论文摘要库目 录引 言..........................................................................................................1第一章 真实供述义务及“说谎豁免权”概述.................................... 2第一节 真实供述义务及“说谎豁免权”之简介................................................... 2一、真实供述义务的概念....................................................................................2二、“说谎豁免权”的概念................................................................................2第二节 真实供述义务、“说谎豁免权”与沉默权............................................... 3一、沉默权与真实供述义务................................................................................4二、沉默权与“说谎豁免权”............................................................................4第三节 真实供述义务与“说谎豁免权”之对立................................................... 5一、义务和权利的对立........................................................................................5二、诉讼角色的对立............................................................................................6第四节 理论依据对比................................................................................................7一、真实供述义务的功能....................................................................................7二、“说谎豁免权”的法理基础......................................................................10第二章 两大法系的实践选择比较与分析.......................................... 14第一节 英美法系......................................................................................................14一、真实供述义务的由来..................................................................................14二、英国、美国的相关规定..............................................................................15第二节 大陆法系......................................................................................................17一、“说谎豁免权”的由来..............................................................................17二、大陆法国家的相关理论..............................................................................18第三节 差异的原因分析..........................................................................................20一、诉讼模式进程的不同..................................................................................20二、平等对抗理念的不同..................................................................................20厦门大学博硕士论文摘要库三、审判模式的不同..........................................................................................21四、证据排除的力度不同..................................................................................21五、沉默权的保障力度不同..............................................................................22第三章 关于我国规制被告人说谎行为的分析.................................. 23第一节 历史演变及现状..........................................................................................23第二节 新刑诉下的中国模式分析..........................................................................24一、不得强迫自证其罪原则与沉默权..............................................................25二、不得强迫自证其罪原则与“如实回答”义务..........................................26三、不得强迫自证其罪原则与“坦白从宽、抗拒从严”刑事政策..............27第三节 “说谎豁免权”在中国存在的可行性分析............................................. 28一、从立法层面分析..........................................................................................29二、从司法层面分析..........................................................................................30结 语....................................................................................................... 34参考文献................................................................................................... 35致 谢........................................................................................................39厦门大学博硕士论文摘要库CONTENTSPreface.........................................................................................................1Chapter 1 Fundamental Viewpoints of the Liability of Telling theTruth & "Lying Immunity"................................................ 2Subchapter 1 Introduction of the Liability of Telling the Truth and "LyingImmunity"........................................................................................ 2Section 1 The Concept of the Liability of Telling the Truth...............................2Section 2 The Concept of "Lying Immunity"..................................................... 2Subchapter 2 The Liability of Telling the Truth & "Lying Immunity"&Privilege of Silence........................................................................... 3Section 1 Privilege of Silence & the Liability of Telling the Truth.................... 4Section 2 Privilege of Silence & "Lying Immunity"...........................................4Subchapter 3 The Opposition between the Liability of Telling the Truth and"Lying Immunity"........................................................................... 5Section 1 The Opposition between Rights and Obligations................................5Section 2 The Opposition between Litigation Roles...........................................6Subchapter 4 Compare the Theory Basis................................................................7Section 1 The Function of the Liability of Telling the Truth..............................7Section 2 The Value Orientation of "Lying Immunity".................................... 10Chapter 2 Compare and analysis of the practice of the two legalsystems................................................................................ 14Subchapter 1 Anglo-American Legal System.......................................................14Section 1 The Evolution of the Liability of Telling the Truth.......................... 14Section 2 Relevant Provisions of the Common Law.........................................15厦门大学博硕士论文摘要库Subchapter 2 Civil Law System............................................................................. 17Section 1 The Evolution of "Lying Immunity"................................................. 17Section 2 Correlation Theory from the Civil Law Countries............................18Subchapter 3 Cause Analysis of the Discrepancy.................................................20Section 1 The Different between Process of Litigation Modes.........................20Section 2 The Different between Equal Confrontation Concept.......................20Section 3 The Different between Trial Modes.................................................. 21Section 4 The Different between the Degree of Exclusion of Evidence...........21Section 5 The Different between the Guarantee Degree of Privilege ofSilence.............................................................................................. 22Chapter 3 Analysis on Regulations on Defendants' Lies in China..23Subchapter 1 The Historical Evolution and Present Situation........................... 23Subchapter 2 The Chinese Model Analysis under the New Criminal ProcedureLaw...................................................................................................24Section 1 "The Privilege against Self-incrimination" & Privilege of Silence...25Section 2 "The Privilege against Self-incrimination"&"Truthfully Statement"26Section 3 "The Privilege against Self-incrimination" & "Leniency for ThoseWho Confess; Severity for Those Who Resist"............................... 27Subchapter 3 Feasibility Analysis of "Lying Immunity" in China.................... 28Section 1 Analysis from the Legislative Level..................................................29Section 2 Analysis from the Judicial Level.......................................................30Conclusion................................................................................................ 34Bibliography............................................................................................. 35Acknowlegements.....................................................................................39厦门大学博硕士论文摘要库引 言1引 言被告人的自由陈述权一直是被告人人权保障的重点内容，其关涉两大问题：一是沉默权问题；二是是否存在真实供述义务，即被告是否享有说谎权。其中沉默权问题在各国都曾成为争议讨论的重点。而我国近年关于这方面的文章也层出不穷，但探讨被告人选择供述后的说谎行为的规制却十分稀少。在国外，几乎找不出一本专门的著作或者一篇专门的文章针对该问题进行详细的阐述，更多的只是刑事诉讼法典中的直接规定。笔者认为其作为自由陈述权的一个重要内容，会对被告人的定罪量刑和人权保障产生不可忽视的影响。因此，对于被告人的说谎权问题进行探讨和研究也就成为一个必要的论题。沉默权制度的建立，为被告人有义务供述还是有权不供述统一了答案。而在被告人选择供述之后做出虚假陈述行为，两大法系却呈现出两种立法倾向。英美法系国家规定被告人一旦选择放弃沉默权而进行陈述，就具备证人身份，同时也需承担真实供述义务，否则就有被认定为伪证罪的可能。而大陆法系国家则相反，规定被告人不因虚假供述而受伪证罪的处罚，相当于赋予其“说谎豁免权”。本文拟透过两大法系不同的立法及司法实践，比较分析其主要原因，得出一些有价值的思考；再结合我国的实际情况，从而为我国规制被告人说谎行为提供借鉴。厦门大学博硕士论文摘要库真实供述义务抑或“说谎豁免权”之选择2第一章 真实供述义务及“说谎豁免权”概述第一节 真实供述义务及“说谎豁免权”之简介一、真实供述义务的概念真实供述义务是指在刑事诉讼庭审过程中，若被告人放弃沉默权选择为自己作证，则其有义务说真话，否则将为自己的说谎行为承担附加的刑事责任。要特别强调的是，被告人的真实供述义务仅存在审判过程中。因为，目前无论是大陆法系还是英美法系理论都不承认犯罪嫌疑人在侦查阶段负有真实供述义务。真实供述义务源于证人的如实作证义务。证人作证目的在于协助司法机关查明案情，这就要求证人提供证言应当是如实地反映案件的真实情况。为此，世界各国的法律都将如实陈述作为证人的主要义务来规定。当被告人选择为自己作证时，其自身的诉讼地位在一定程度上增加了“证人”这一角色。因此，所谓真实供述义务是被告人在庭审过程中，扮演“证人”时所承担的一项特殊责任。在民事诉讼领域，同样存在着一项与此相类似的义务，即“当事人的真实义务”。当事人的真实义务在于禁止当事人违背诚信原则作恶意虚假之陈述，一旦违反真实义务，将负相应的法律责任。①尽管刑事诉讼和民事诉讼之间存在不小的差异，被告人的真实供述义务和当事人的真实义务之间亦有诸多区别，但二者之间不可避免的存在着共通之处，尤其是在价值基础方面。因此，通过对当事人真实义务的了解能进一步理解真实供述义务的内涵。二、“说谎豁免权”的概念“说谎权”，又称“撒谎的权利”。该词最早出现于吴丽淇所翻译的①赵德玖.民事诉讼法不应确立当事人真实义务[J].法学杂志,2006,27(2):120-122.厦门大学博硕士论文摘要库Degree papers are in the “Xiamen University Electronic Theses and Dissertations Database”. Fulltexts are available in the following ways: 1. If your library is a CALIS member libraries, please log on http://etd.calis.edu.cn/ and submitrequests online, or consult the interlibrary loan department in your library. 2. For users of non-CALIS member libraries, please mail to etd@xmu.edu.cn for delivery details.厦门大学博硕士论文摘要库

The Choice of the Liability of Telling the Truth or "Lying Immunity"

http://dspace.xmu.edu.cn/bitstream/handle/2288/80814/%e7%9c%9f%e5%ae%9e%e4%be%9b%e8%bf%b0%e4%b9%89%e5%8a%a1%e6%8a%91%e6%88%96%e2%80%9c%e8%af%b4%e8%b0%8e%e8%b1%81%e5%85%8d%e6%9d%83%e2%80%9d%e4%b9%8b%e9%80%89%e6%8b%a9%20%e2%80%94%e2%80%94%e4%bb%a5%e4%b8%a4%e5%a4%a7%e6%b3%95%e7%b3%bb%e6%af%94%e8%be%83%e5%88%86%e6%9e%90%e4%b8%ba%e5%88%87%e5%85%a5%e7%82%b9.pdf?sequence=1&isAllowed=y

The Choice of the Liability of Telling the Truth or "Lying Immunity"

Abstract

Similar works

Full text

Available Versions

Xiamen University Institutional Repository