The Study Of The Truthful Confession

“Honest statement”, as the duty that suspect should shoulder, is the main content of confession, and one constitutive element of surrender. Though honestly answer, confession and surrender are respectively made rules through laws and judicial interpretation, theoretically there is no all-round and systematical analysis of “Honest statement” as the main line. As multiple standards exist on understanding of “Honest statement” in judicial practice, it is necessary to deep into the concept of “Honest statement”.The article is divided into four parts:Part one: outline. This part mainly introduces Honest statement’s historical evolution, legal regulations and its theoretical basis. It states that the concept of Honest statement has a long history since feudal society. From its birth, the rule has kept in the core position. The rule of Honest statement in current laws is inherited from history. On its basis, three important systems are designed, that is, honestly answer, confession and surrender. Besides, this part also points out that this utilitarianism-oriented legislative design is in favor of saving judicial resource, reforming criminals and restoring social relations, however, against the right to silence.Part two: main content. In this part, the concept of Honest statement is systematically analyzed from three sides of time, scope and standards. As to the time, surrenderor’s honest statement of main corpus delicti must be given in the fist interrogation, but that of confessor could be told at the courtday. In terms of scope, the investigators’ questions make a difference. Furthermore, the statement scope in one crime is not the same as that in plural crimes. As for standards, if the suspect’s statement accords with his cognizance and objective facts based on his memory and views, this can be identified as true.Part three: puzzling problems. First, when the statement given by the suspect is inconstant, it should be affirmed according to the time of Honest statement. The affirming of honest statement should be based on the facts verified by the first instance instead of that withdrew in the second instance. Second, as to the identification of honest statement in continuing offence, implicated offence and incorporate offence, it is acknowledged that honest statement in continuing offence should be identified based on the corpus delicti stated and not stated criminal facts’ harm extent, while that in implicated offence and incorporate offence should be decided by the standards set in the principal of plural crimes. Third, confess involved with others’ criminal behaviors can be identified as surrender separately or meritorious performance. For example, accessory confesses others’ criminal facts except for himself, drug offender provides the clue where it comes from and who to sell, and socius criminis frankly tells his accomplice’s going-beyond-the-limit. Fourth, it is not recognized as honest statement when the offender argues for and denies subjective intent.Part four: improvement of legislation and judiciary. First, suspect in criminal coercive measures, defendant and criminals in prison can constitute surrender of residual crimes when they confess the guilty belonging to the same species which is not yet mastered by the judicial office under the enforcement measures. Second, it should be canceled that criminals closely related with laws and facts is summarized in guilty belonging to the same species, because this act is viewed as an explain to the disadvantage of the defendant. Third, the statement up to standard of meritorious action beyond the scope of honest answer should be affirmed because it has the theoretical basis and conforms to the legislative intention. Fourth, combined quantitative with qualitative analysis, it is necessary to establish a gradient lighter punishment model adapted to the three dimensions of honest statement from the view of quantitative analysis.