口供的可采性:道听途说原则与自愿性原则

IF 0.7 2区 社会学 Q2 LAW International Journal of Evidence & Proof Pub Date : 2021-04-01 DOI:10.1177/13657127211002287
J. Porter
{"title":"口供的可采性:道听途说原则与自愿性原则","authors":"J. Porter","doi":"10.1177/13657127211002287","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"The common law test of voluntariness has come to be associated with important policy rationales including the privilege against self-incrimination. However, when the test originated more than a century ago, it was a test concerned specifically with the truthfulness of confession evidence; which evidence was at that time adduced in the form of indirect oral testimony, that is, as hearsay. Given that, a century later, confession evidence is now mostly adduced in the form of an audiovisual recording that can be observed directly by the trial judge, rather than as indirect oral testimony, there may be capacity for a different emphasis regarding the question of admissibility. This article considers the law currently operating in Western Australia, Queensland and South Australia to see whether or not, in the form of an audiovisual recording, the exercise of judicial discretion as to the question of the admissibility of confession evidence might be supported if the common law test of voluntariness was not a strict test of exclusion.","PeriodicalId":54168,"journal":{"name":"International Journal of Evidence & Proof","volume":"25 1","pages":"93 - 114"},"PeriodicalIF":0.7000,"publicationDate":"2021-04-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1177/13657127211002287","citationCount":"1","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Admissibility of confession evidence: Principles of hearsay and the rule of voluntariness\",\"authors\":\"J. Porter\",\"doi\":\"10.1177/13657127211002287\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"The common law test of voluntariness has come to be associated with important policy rationales including the privilege against self-incrimination. However, when the test originated more than a century ago, it was a test concerned specifically with the truthfulness of confession evidence; which evidence was at that time adduced in the form of indirect oral testimony, that is, as hearsay. Given that, a century later, confession evidence is now mostly adduced in the form of an audiovisual recording that can be observed directly by the trial judge, rather than as indirect oral testimony, there may be capacity for a different emphasis regarding the question of admissibility. This article considers the law currently operating in Western Australia, Queensland and South Australia to see whether or not, in the form of an audiovisual recording, the exercise of judicial discretion as to the question of the admissibility of confession evidence might be supported if the common law test of voluntariness was not a strict test of exclusion.\",\"PeriodicalId\":54168,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"International Journal of Evidence & Proof\",\"volume\":\"25 1\",\"pages\":\"93 - 114\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.7000,\"publicationDate\":\"2021-04-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1177/13657127211002287\",\"citationCount\":\"1\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"International Journal of Evidence & Proof\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"90\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1177/13657127211002287\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"社会学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"LAW\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"International Journal of Evidence & Proof","FirstCategoryId":"90","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/13657127211002287","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"LAW","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

摘要

普通法对自愿性的检验已经与重要的政策理由联系在一起,包括反对自证其罪的特权。然而,当这个测试起源于一个多世纪前时,它是一个专门关注供词证据真实性的测试;这些证据当时是以间接口头证词的形式援引的,即道听途说。鉴于一个世纪后,供词证据现在大多以视听记录的形式提出,审判法官可以直接观察,而不是作为间接口头证词,因此可能有能力对可否受理问题给予不同的强调。本条考虑了目前在西澳大利亚州、昆士兰州和南澳大利亚州实施的法律,以确定如果普通法对自愿的检验不是对排除的严格检验,是否可以支持以音像记录的形式对供词证据的可采性问题行使司法自由裁量权。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Admissibility of confession evidence: Principles of hearsay and the rule of voluntariness
The common law test of voluntariness has come to be associated with important policy rationales including the privilege against self-incrimination. However, when the test originated more than a century ago, it was a test concerned specifically with the truthfulness of confession evidence; which evidence was at that time adduced in the form of indirect oral testimony, that is, as hearsay. Given that, a century later, confession evidence is now mostly adduced in the form of an audiovisual recording that can be observed directly by the trial judge, rather than as indirect oral testimony, there may be capacity for a different emphasis regarding the question of admissibility. This article considers the law currently operating in Western Australia, Queensland and South Australia to see whether or not, in the form of an audiovisual recording, the exercise of judicial discretion as to the question of the admissibility of confession evidence might be supported if the common law test of voluntariness was not a strict test of exclusion.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
2.30
自引率
20.00%
发文量
15
期刊最新文献
Preponderance, proportionality, stepwise liability Stepwise liability: Between the preponderance rule and proportional liability The skewing effect of outcome evidence The economic case for conviction multiplicity What matters for assessing insider witnesses? Results of an experimental vignette study
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1