The Confession Corroboration Rules

For the meaning of confession confession of guilt not only contain the suspect and the defendant, but should contain the suspect guilty and argued in a statement Zuiqing time. Due to illegal means or the offender's chances are endless and the investigating authorities or because of changes in the environment lead to questioning the authenticity of statements of unknown characteristics. Reinforcing the rules of evidence means evidence of defects in the law or the authenticity under unknown circumstances can not prove facts of the case, we need to supplement other evidence to prove a rule. Value Corroborative rule is by evidence other than confessions reinforcing probative force confessions or other evidence to support or confirm the authenticity of the statement, so that the probative force of confession to be recognized. Therefore, the value of Corroborative rule, the first is to ensure that the proceedings in the use of confessions authenticity. For our main Corroborative contains evidence unlawfully obtained confessions and statements directly exclusions reinforced legally acquired, lawfully obtained the confession will be such and such a defect, so you need to be reinforced with other evidence supplementary statement of evidence. Corroborative range should include the investigation, prosecution, trial testimony of three stages, according to the legal provisions for corroborative evidence should be related to the evidence and facts of the case. In Corroborative most important point is that the evidence should be Corroborative Corroborative to what extent, the degree of corroboration should prove the authenticity of statements and facts of the case in accordance with the provisions of the criminal proceedings. It is obvious from the above rules there Corroborative law Lack of fuzzy rules and Corroborative basic category. These are only theoretical level on issues, and for confessions in judicial practice and reinforcement content has a different problem, in the investigation stage of our law states:. "Criminal facts are clear, sufficient evidence" requirement to the facts of the case and some of the specific provisions. The main stage of the investigation there are several problems, first of all with excessive dependence on confessions in the investigation phase of the case. This is mainly because in practice the "no verdict for not" is still a lot of investigators handling the case as a creed, confession is considered a top priority to solve the case, there are statements is equivalent to have a clue, and thus to obtain confessions by any means. Second stage in the investigation of torture is also difficult to rule out an important issue, which is also influenced by confessions centrism. The last murder must be solved is the principle cause of Corroborative difficult to apply the rules of evidence. Prosecutors in the prosecution process, mainly in a legal supervisor needs to be done effectively excluding illegally obtained evidence and protection of human rights and justice. In the prosecution of the main problems has highly prosecutor investigating authorities agree to the proceedings leading to the impact statement is difficult to obtain confessions and torture reliability real reinforcement made difficult to obtain conclusive estoppel and thus to lead to enormous estoppel neglect. In our trial proceedings is not clearly defined for Corroborative evidence generally meet three of the evidence can be. In Corroborative in the trial proceedings in the main problems are the defendant argued in the trial court and small finds of estoppel consuming judicial resources is relatively large. Some legislative program for the above problems extraterritorial brought us some experience. We can learn according to their own national conditions. Improve our Corroborative rules but also from the procedures carried out in several stages, it is a clear statement in the investigation stage, and the scope of the rules to prove Corroborative determination of the scope, the rules of evidence Corroborative range determined mainly from subjective and objective aspects of the crime of these two terms. About perfection of the prosecution phase, first the prosecution evidence should be submitted by the investigating authorities to exercise the verification truthfully. Secondly, for those who violate the statutory procedures to obtain a confession of judgment and a perfect choice given standards. This standard specifies that the first time a violation of the law and place to obtain confessions, followed by the rights and obligations of the law to the investigation stage of criminal suspects and defendants have happened but did not tell him to tell the case, this time confession of a snack and reinforcement. Again for another program in violation of the law and to gain confessions and identification for those deprived investigators suspect the right to a lawyer to help made a confession of identification. Finally, how corroborative evidence in the prosecution estoppel reaches beyond a reasonable doubt perfect. Perfection in the trial stages, we must first set up by the judge for testimony reinforced mandate a range specification. Second, the trial judge should be responsible for the exclusion of illegally obtained confession of judgment for corroborative evidence to prove the responsibility of the prosecution to prove. With more than three-phase measures to improve Corroborative rules will be getting better and better.