悖离与纠偏:诱导性询问规则的实践性反思  

Deviation and Rectification:Practical Reflection on the Leading Question Rule

作　　者：李思远 LI Siyuan(Law School,Shanghai University,Shanghai 200444,China)

机构地区：[1]上海大学法学院,上海200444

出　　处：《上海大学学报（社会科学版）》2023年第3期138-153,共16页Journal of Shanghai University(Social Sciences Edition)

基　　金：上海市哲学社会科学规划年度课题(2022ZFX003)。

摘　　要：诱导性询问规则在我国不仅学理争议不断,即使在法律规范层面也被赋予消极定义而遭禁止。通过分析215篇与诱导性询问有关的刑事裁判文书发现,在实践中,诱导性询问被赋予多重内涵,在侦查、起诉乃至审判环节,诱导性询问的认定和排除更是一道难题,名为禁止,实为允许,表里不一的运行模式使得立法与实践之间出现了明显的断层。对诱导性询问不加甄别,一概禁止,加重了司法办案人员诱导性询问的非法嫌疑。应当理性看待诱导性询问的技术中立属性,厘清其积极模式和消极模式,构建积极的庭前和庭审阶段的诱导性询问规则,完善不当诱导性询问的发现与救济。In China,leading question is not only controversial in theory,but also interpreted with negative definition,thus being prohibited in legal norms.By analyzing 215 criminal judgment documents related to leading questions,the study finds that in practice,leading question is endowed with multiple connotations,resulting in the dilemma that in the process of investigation,prosecution and even trial,the identification and exclusion of leading questions is a real challenge.Leading question is legally prohibited,but practiced in reality.The inconsistency makes an obvious gap between legislation and practice.An discriminate prohibition of leading questions aggravates the illegality of judicial case handlers suspecting of asking leading questions.Therefore,it is essential to recognize the technical neutrality attribute of leading question in a rational manner,discern its positive and negative mode,and set up justified rules for leading questions in pre-trial and whiletrial stages while improving the mechanism of identifying improper leading questions and making redemptive measures.

关 键 词：诱导性询问 诱导性询问规则 交叉询问 庭审实质化 

分 类 号：D915.13[政治法律—诉讼法学]