The Perfection Of The Rule Of Excluding Illegal Confession In Duty Crime Cases

Evidence in a case of official crime is the key to establishing the facts and safeguarding the quality of the case.Chapter IV of the Regulations for the Implementation of the Supervision Law of the People’s Republic of China(hereinafter referred to as the "Regulations")implemented on September 20,2021 stipulates "evidence",and in the evidence section,it also stipulates the exclusion of illegal confessions,further detailing with the Criminal Procedure Law of the People’s Republic of China.In the investigation of duty crime cases,the criminal subject is special,the investigation method is special,and the evidence is scarce,which leads to its reliance on the counterparty confession.By comparing job-related crime cases with ordinary criminal cases,this thesis analyzes the norms for the exclusion of illegal confessions in job-related crime cases,and finds the following connections and differences: the connection lies in the fact that the criteria for determining illegal confessions in job-related crime cases are basically the same as those in ordinary criminal cases;the differences lie in the different definitions of illegal methods,different aspects of evidence collection in job-related crime cases,and different evidence reviews in job-related crime cases.Through the combing of cases,it is found that there are the following problems in practice in the exclusion of illegal confessions: First,it is difficult to start,it is difficult for the person under investigation to obtain materials proving the existence of illegal confessions,the investigation procedures for job-related crimes lack the intervention of lawyers,and there is no specific legal provision on whether the person under investigation can obtain help from a lawyer.Second,it is difficult to prove that it is difficult for the person under investigation to consult the whole process of synchronous audio and video recording;investigators refuse to testify in court or replace it with a statement of the situation;the core of the evidence review deviates,and the authenticity and legality are misplaced.Third,it is difficult to determine,the criteria for determining fatigue interrogation have not yet been unified;it is difficult to distinguish between seduction,deception and investigation strategies;and the scope of exclusion of repetitive confessions is too narrow.In view of the above problems,this thesis integrates the institutional resources of the illegal confession exclusion rule in the existing criminal procedure system and the institutional experience of foreign countries on the illegal confession exclusion rule,and proposes the following countermeasures: First,the lawyer assists in the initiation of the illegal discharge procedure,and the lawyer intervenes in the investigation stage to help the respondent collect and fix the evidence in a timely manner,and help the respondent better obtain the clue materials for applying for the exclusion of illegal confession.The second is to materialize evidence review to solve the difficulty of proof,improve the system of synchronous audio and video recording of the whole process;implement investigators to appear in court to testify;emphasize the "legality" of review evidence;the third is to clarify the criteria for determining illegal confessions,establish reference standards for determining fatigue interrogation;establish standards for distinguishing interrogation strategies from seduction and deception;and improve relevant provisions on repetitive confessions.