论文部分内容阅读
从我国检察机关办理贿赂犯罪案件的侦查实践来看,口供常常作为贿赂案件侦查的突破口,没有口供,不仅侦查工作难以开展,甚至无法立案,口供证据因其在“一对一”贿赂案件的重要地位而被称为“证据之王”。近些年,也有学者对检察机关“口供至上”的办案理念提出质疑,认为在侦查“一对一”贿赂案件中过于依赖犯罪嫌疑人的有罪供述,而忽略了案件其他证据的获取,容易导致错案、犯罪嫌疑人翻供等问题;更有检察机关提出了完全排除口供证据的“零口供”办案理念。针对理论界和实务部门在“一对一”贿赂案件中出现的“零口供”与“口供至上”的争议,应从“一对一”贿赂案件口供的特点入手,认真研究我国目前侦查中口供的价值,并在此基础上予以完善。
Judging from the investigation practice of handling criminal cases of bribery by the procuratorial organs in our country, the confession is often used as a breakthrough point in the investigation of bribery cases. There is no confession. Not only is the investigation difficult to carry out, nor can it even be put on record. Evidence of the confession is due to its “one to one” bribery case Known as the “king of evidence.” In recent years, some scholars have also questioned the concept of procuratorate handling the “oral confession”, believing that they have relied too much on the guilty plea of criminal suspects in the investigation of “one to one” bribery and ignored the other evidences in the case Obtained, easily lead to misjudgment, criminal suspects turn over and other issues; more procuratorial organs proposed a total exclusion of evidence to provide “zero for the ” case concept. In view of the controversy between the theoretical circles and the substantive departments in “one to one” bribery cases, the contention of “providing no information” and “confession to supremacy” should start with the characteristics of the “one to one” “bribe” We should conscientiously study the value of the confession provided in the current investigation in our country and make improvements on this basis.