检索规则说明:AND代表“并且”;OR代表“或者”;NOT代表“不包含”;(注意必须大写,运算符两边需空一格)
检 索 范 例 :范例一: (K=图书馆学 OR K=情报学) AND A=范并思 范例二:J=计算机应用与软件 AND (U=C++ OR U=Basic) NOT M=Visual
作 者:易延友[1] YI Yanyou(School of Law,Tsinghua University,Beijing 100084,China)
机构地区:[1]清华大学法学院,北京100084
出 处:《浙江工商大学学报》2023年第4期38-52,共15页Journal of Zhejiang Gongshang University
摘 要:法学家们纷纷为确立律师在场权而不断呼吁修改《刑事诉讼法》。但我国1996年《刑事诉讼法》第96条第1款其实早就确立了律师在场权;2012年《刑事诉讼法》虽对1996年《刑事诉讼法》的规定做了调整,但宗旨未变;2018年《刑事诉讼法》继续通过值班律师制度进一步拓宽了该项权利的适用范围。但由于立法表述中缺乏“律师在场权”这样明确的字眼,加上刑事诉讼法解释学的滞后,以及其他一些不容忽视的原因,该项权利并未成为司法实务中真正的权利,而是一度遭到忽略,因此需要通过立法的重新表述或者通过司法解释对具体规则加以明确,同时通过配套制度的完善使该项权利成为侦查讯问中犯罪嫌疑人切实的保障。相应地,律师在场权应当成为一项实质性权利,在场的律师可以为嫌疑人提供现场法律咨询并就相关问题的回答提出建议;侵犯该权利取得的供述应作为非法证据予以排除。Jurists have continuously called for the revision of the Criminal Procedure Law to establish the right to the presence of lawyers.However,Article 96,Paragraph 1,of China s 1996 Criminal Procedure Law established the right to the presence of a lawyer a long time ago;the 2012 Criminal Procedure Law revised the provisions of the 1996 Criminal Procedure Law,but its purpose remained unchanged;and the 2018 Criminal Procedure Law continued to further broaden the scope of the application of this right through the lawyer-on-duty system.However,due to the lack of clear words such as“the right to the presence of a lawyer”in the legislative formulation,coupled with the lagging hermeneutics of criminal procedure law,as well as several other reasons that should not be ignored,this right has not become a real right in judicial practice,but has been neglected.Therefore,it needs to be clarified through legislative reformulation or judicial interpretation of specific rules,and at the same time,through the improvement of the supporting system to make the right to become the practical safeguards for criminal suspects during the investigation and interrogation.Accordingly,the right to the presence of a lawyer should be made a substantive right,with a lawyer present to provide on-the-spot legal advice to the suspect and to suggest answers to relevant questions;statements obtained in violation of this right should be excluded as illegal evidence.
正在载入数据...
正在载入数据...
正在载入数据...
正在载入数据...
正在载入数据...
正在载入数据...
正在载入数据...
正在链接到云南高校图书馆文献保障联盟下载...
云南高校图书馆联盟文献共享服务平台 版权所有©
您的IP:3.148.109.137