论反对强迫自证其罪原则——兼论沉默权与“如实回答”条款的关系  

Study on the Principle against Self-incrimination——Concurrent Discussion on the Relationship between the Right to Silence and "Truthful Answer" Clause

作　　者：王珏[1] 

机构地区：[1]中国人民大学法学院,北京100872

出　　处：《黑龙江省政法管理干部学院学报》2014年第6期97-100,共4页Journal of Heilongjiang Administrative Cadre College of Politics and Law

摘　　要：2012年刑事诉讼法修正案将反对强迫自证其罪原则纳入其中,但对与该原则具有密切联系的沉默权制度却没有提及,并且保留了第118条"如实供述"的内容。这就使得解读相关条文时存在逻辑上的矛盾。通过对国际公约和各国立法的解读,可以得出反对强迫自证其罪原则可以推导出默示沉默权的结论。为解决该原则与"如实回答"条款之间的冲突,第118条应理解为:如果你要回答问题,就应当如实回答;如果你选择沉默,则无须回答。In 2012, the right against self-incrimination has been included in the Code of Criminal Procedure. How- ever, the right to silence is not referred to and the clause of ＂truthful answer＂ still remains, which causes logical contradic- tion in the interpretation of relevant provisions. The conclusion is that implied right of silence can be inferred from the principle from the origin and connotation of the principle at the sight of International Convention and foreign legislation. A reasonable explanation of the truthful answer clause is also suggested to solve the contradiction, which means if you choose to answer you should be honest and if you choose to be silent the answer is unnecessary. Only by clarifying the relationship between different systems can the law operates smoothly.

关 键 词：沉默权 反对强迫自证其罪 如实供述 

分 类 号：DF711[政治法律—诉讼法学]