应当如实回答:如实回答,还是应当回答——评《刑事诉讼法》第118条  

Should Answer Truthfully:Answer Truthfully or Should Answer?Analysis of Article 118 of the Criminal Procedure Law

作　　者：周志轶[1] 

机构地区：[1]广东外语外贸大学商英学院,广东广州510420

出　　处：《江西科技师范学院学报》2013年第1期75-79,共5页Journal of Nanchang Vocational & Technical Techers' College

基　　金：2011年度广东高校人文社科重大攻关项目"涉外法律语言信息处理研究"(11ZGXM74001)的阶段性成果

摘　　要：刑事诉讼法既新增保障人权和不得自证其罪,也留有33年前的应当如实回答,两者似不矛盾。在讯问语境下,虽应告知嫌疑人如实供述可以从宽处理,但因也可不从宽处理,实未告知任何权利;而若要求如实供述,则涉嫌强迫自证其罪,故应当如实回答的立法原意应是"如实"回答,而非"应当"回答。对此语用模糊,可作有权解释以明确其具体含义,也可告知被讯问人权利,即宪法规定的公民基本权利,如保持沉默的言论自由,以使不当法律适用无需违宪审查即自行废止。the Criminal Procedure Law adds such amendments as ’protect human rights’ and ’should not force self incrimination’,while keeping the 33-year-old ’should truthfully answer’,which seem in no contradiction.In the context of police interrogations,a suspect should be informed that he may be given leniency if confessing truthfully,but this is not of any right,because he may not be given leniency if so.Where he is demanded to confess his crimes,the demanding act is the abuse of power to force self-incrimination.Logically reasoning,the legislative intention for ’should answer truthfully’ emphasizes the manner to answer instead of the obligation to answer.As for such vague expressions,an authoritative interpretation may be utilized to clarify its specific meaning,and/or the right to silence under the constitutional freedom of speech may be informed of,so that the improper application of the law can be annulled automatically and without resorting to the review of constitutionality.

关 键 词：讯问语境 法律解释 告知权利 应当如实回答 不得自证其罪 

分 类 号：D915.3[政治法律—诉讼法学]