지원사업
학술연구/단체지원/교육 등 연구자 활동을 지속하도록 DBpia가 지원하고 있어요.
커뮤니티
연구자들이 자신의 연구와 전문성을 널리 알리고, 새로운 협력의 기회를 만들 수 있는 네트워킹 공간이에요.
초록· 키워드
오류제보하기
Deciding whether a confession extracted by a suspect was voluntarily made is not an easy task. It is admitted that when a suspect confesses, she thinks about some gains that she could get in return, otherwise the suspect has no motivation to incriminate herself. Then, what would be the draw for a suspect to talk? What would be the most used tactic utilized by the police when the police is trying to elicit vital confessions? One of the most favorite method used by the police is deception. When a confession is made throughout the use of deception, it is questionable whether the confession was actually made voluntarily. This question presupposes that any confession manufactured throughout the use of any sort of police brutality is not the confession voluntarily made.
There are several things that need to be discussed. First, if a confession is made while the police use the tactic of deception to elicit the confession, and if for some reason some level of deception is allowed to be used, what would be the general criteria to discern which deceptive method can lawfully be utilized? The answer to this hypothetical question is much more complicated than it looks. Bram v. United States, Miranda v. Arizona, and Dickerson v. United States all talk that the criteria for voluntariness test should be a formalistic one. That is, any confession elicited by illegal means, including a confession prior to Miranda warning, should be excluded according to the three cases stated above. In the same vein, those cases also argue that any confession obtained by deceptive means will also be illegal, therefore it will be excluded. This bright line rule seems to be easy to apply. However, those cases never give an answer on what kind of impact the voluntariness test has on when deciding which confession was actually voluntarily made. The bright line rule begs another question on what would be our decision to decide voluntariness when a confession seems to be voluntarily made but throughout deceptive means.
I think the right approach to the voluntariness question in regards to elicit confession throughout deceptive means should be so called "the totality of circumstances" test. Some seems to misunderstand the test does not say "any confession, even ones obtained by coercive measure such as violence, torture should be under the same totality of circumstance test." For the confession elicited throughout the use of deceptive means, the totality of circumstances test is a much more meaningful solution to discern whether the confession has the notion of voluntarines.
There are several things that need to be discussed. First, if a confession is made while the police use the tactic of deception to elicit the confession, and if for some reason some level of deception is allowed to be used, what would be the general criteria to discern which deceptive method can lawfully be utilized? The answer to this hypothetical question is much more complicated than it looks. Bram v. United States, Miranda v. Arizona, and Dickerson v. United States all talk that the criteria for voluntariness test should be a formalistic one. That is, any confession elicited by illegal means, including a confession prior to Miranda warning, should be excluded according to the three cases stated above. In the same vein, those cases also argue that any confession obtained by deceptive means will also be illegal, therefore it will be excluded. This bright line rule seems to be easy to apply. However, those cases never give an answer on what kind of impact the voluntariness test has on when deciding which confession was actually voluntarily made. The bright line rule begs another question on what would be our decision to decide voluntariness when a confession seems to be voluntarily made but throughout deceptive means.
I think the right approach to the voluntariness question in regards to elicit confession throughout deceptive means should be so called "the totality of circumstances" test. Some seems to misunderstand the test does not say "any confession, even ones obtained by coercive measure such as violence, torture should be under the same totality of circumstance test." For the confession elicited throughout the use of deceptive means, the totality of circumstances test is a much more meaningful solution to discern whether the confession has the notion of voluntarines.
목차
Ⅰ. 들어가는 글
Ⅱ. 任意性(Voluntariness) 있는 自白의 意義
Ⅲ. 기망에 의한 자백에서의 기망
Ⅴ. 맺음말
Abstract
참고문헌
참고문헌 (0)
참고문헌 신청함께 읽어보면 좋을 논문
논문 유사도에 따라 DBpia 가 추천하는 논문입니다. 함께 보면 좋을 연관 논문을 확인해보세요!
-
허위자백의 사례분석을 통해 본 형사절차상 문제점
비교형사법연구
2012 .01
-
자백배제법칙의 근거와 임의성의 판단 - 위법배제설의 관점에서 본 형사소송법 제309조의 의미 재검토 -
외법논집
2011 .01
-
자백의 철회
원광법학
2009 .01
-
자백증거의 증거능력에 관한 법해석론적 고찰
중앙법학
2015 .09
-
자백의 신빙성 판단기준에 관한 고찰
한양법학
2017 .05
-
口供排除规则的易经原则解析
동북아법연구
2017 .01
-
자백의 증명력 판단에 관한 실질적 기준의 정립
형사법연구
2011 .01
-
간접사실에 관한 자백
원광법학
2010 .01
-
선행자백과 등가치진술의 이론
원광법학
2010 .01
-
형사절차상 자백배제법칙의 근거와 그 의미
법학연구
2013 .11
-
개정 형사소송법과 자백의 증거능력
중앙법학
2007 .10
-
소년사건에서의 자백의 임의성에 대한 연구
경찰학연구
2012 .12
-
소송절차상 자백배제법칙의 합리적 적용에 관한 소고
경찰학논총
2011 .01
-
외국의 허위자백 연구동향과 형사정책적 함의
형사정책연구
2014 .09
-
현대 심리신문기법과 허위자백 : 현대 심리신문기법에 의한 허위자백 유발에 대한 원인분석과 형사소송법상 대응책의 검토를 중심으로
형사정책연구
2012 .09
-
피의자의 허위자백 방지를 위한 조사기법의 고도화 방안: 일본 연구회의 조사 및 수사기법 고도화를 위한 최종보고를 중심으로
치안정책연구
2013 .01
-
허위자백에 대한 인식과 위험요소에 대한 민감도
사회과학연구
2018 .11
-
전업작가의 처녀작 －『우미인초』와 『가면의 고백』－
일본언어문화
2014 .01
-
거짓말 탐지 검사관의 특징과 범죄자백율의 관계 분석
경찰학연구
2011 .03
이 논문의 저자 정보
이 논문과 함께 이용한 논문
한국의 공판정 자백과 미국의 유죄답변 협상제도
安晟秀
저스티스
2006
.06
미국의 전문법칙과 대면권에 비추어본 참고인진술조서의 증거능력
최병천
저스티스
2012
.08
현행 조서관련 규정에 관한 비판적인 고찰 : 비교법적인 고찰을 통한 현행 규정의 검토와 대안의 모색을 중심으로
권영법
저스티스
2012
.08
Hearsay Rules in the Korean Criminal Procedure Act : Focused on the justification of the hearsay rule and the scope of the hearsay evidence
권오걸
법학연구
2012
.05
공판중심주의에 따른 증거능력의 개념 및 증거판단의 우선순위
정웅석
저스티스
2012
.06
최근 본 자료
댓글(0)
0
UCI(KEPA) : I410-ECN-0101-2009-360-018273329