Exclude Confessions Obtained By Seduction And Deception

Looking at the judicial practice both at home and abroad,there is a certain degree of admissibility for using the methods of deception and seduction.However,the false accusations that have been exposed in recent years seem to grow like leeks.After cutting off the old ones,they continue to grow new ones,constantly provoking sensitive public nerves,and embarrassing the temptation and deceitful deception methods.The reason lies in the legal risk of luring and cheating as a tactic for deception,but there is no explicit conception of the confession obtained through the methods of luring and cheating.Not only that,there is even an internal logic conflict between the "strict prohibition" attitude of Article 50 of the Criminal Procedure Law and the "partial exclusion" attitude of Article 54,which makes the judicial practitioners take a passive attitude of avoiding or even resisting in practice,resulting in falsehood Frequent confessions are not sanctioned,the implementation of illegal evidence is not effective.This article argues that in order to resolve the conflict between Article 50 and Article 54 of the Criminal Procedure Law,we should appropriately legalize part of the interceptive and fraudulent deception and then regulate the temptation and deception of illegality so as to eliminate the difference between the articles Conflict.In other words,Article 50 prohibits the temptation to cheat and deceit,and some of the confessions excluded in Article 54 are acquired illegally and have not been adopted as necessary.Therefore,in order to straighten out the order of application of the law,this paper constructs a second-level exclusion system-taking illegality as the basic exclusion criterion and necessity as the supplementary exclusion criterion.In specific application,there are three situations depending on whether they are illegal or not.First,if the temptation to deceive the law,allows the use of confessions obtained thereby;Second,if the temptation to cheat in general illegal,it is evidence of defects,the need to further determine whether the confession obtained by this correction or reasonable interpretation of the authenticity If affirmed its authenticity,then the flaw evidence is "cured",allowing the use;if the flaw can not be corrected or not reasonably explained,but there are other evidence to prove the truth of the confession,and the confession is strong,It should be further judged for the purposes of judicial fairness whether the confession thus obtained can be adopted.Third,if the temptation to deceive seriously violates the law,which seriously infringes upon the basic rights of citizens,the confession thus obtained is illegitimate evidence that goes beyond the procedure The bottom line of just sacrifice should be excluded.Even if the oral confession is objective and authentic and strong,the principle of procedural sanctions and the need to regulate power should still be ruled out.Nevertheless,there are still many loopholes and inadequacies in the above-mentioned exclusion criteria system.Judicial practitioners are required to exercise discretion in their practice by using their own wisdom and taking the overall situation into consideration.Finally,we should establish a standardized and effective institutionalized operation mechanism,promote the implementation of audio-video recording system and reduce the uncertainty of judges' free testimony.