关于恢复录像侦查地位的思考

Sueng eon Kim
{"title":"关于恢复录像侦查地位的思考","authors":"Sueng eon Kim","doi":"10.34222/kdps.2023.15.2.217","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"The video recording investigation, which began with the digital revolution as an innovation in documentary culture, brought present and former Defendant together in one court and made it possible to savor their statements. The separation of prosecution and trial adopted by the modern criminal law had the side effect of increasing the difficulty of discovering the substantive truth due to the time lag, but video recording investigations that maintain the freshness of statements like a refrigerator help overcome this. It is a gift brought by the development of science and technology. However, the reality of our law has fallen into the dogma of trials that have settled for the past, and has deprived the admissibility of evidence of video recording investigations through legislation and interpretation. It is regrettable that there has been a lack of consideration about whether it is possible to deprive certain types of evidence of the admissibility of evidence through legislation and whether the reasons are reasonable. The national punishment power, which is a means of realizing the rule of law, must be exercised correctly, appropriately, and impartially, which is a constitutional requirement. In particular, the power to punish as a judiciary must be fair and appear fair. To this end, all evidence, which is the data for finding the facts, must be allowed to enter the courtroom if it meets the general requirements for admissibility of evidence without being biased. Advanced criminal justice systems such as the UK, the US, Germany, and Japan all operate criminal justice systems with the possibility of using evidence open, and this is a global standard. In practice, video recordings such as CCTV and black boxes are recognized as evidence, and transcripts, which are hearsay evidence, are also recognized as evidence if they fall under the exception of the hearsay rule. There is no reason to treat it differently as a video recording investigation. Prohibiting the use of this certificate on the grounds that it is a video recording investigation is unconstitutional as it hinders the correct and fair exercise of The national punishment power. The speed of change in the world is dazzling. In order to prevent criminal justice from becoming an obstacle in a rapidly changing society, the status of video recording investigations must be restored as evidence. We should not be buried in exhausting debates anymore, but respond in time to new crimes emerging in a rapidly changing environment and crimes that are increasingly becoming more intelligent, organized, and internationalized. Now is the time for each of us to use our creativity for an effective future criminal justice system.","PeriodicalId":384688,"journal":{"name":"The Korean Association of Criminal Procedure Law","volume":"16 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2023-06-30","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Thoughts on Restoring the Status of Video Recording Investigations\",\"authors\":\"Sueng eon Kim\",\"doi\":\"10.34222/kdps.2023.15.2.217\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"The video recording investigation, which began with the digital revolution as an innovation in documentary culture, brought present and former Defendant together in one court and made it possible to savor their statements. The separation of prosecution and trial adopted by the modern criminal law had the side effect of increasing the difficulty of discovering the substantive truth due to the time lag, but video recording investigations that maintain the freshness of statements like a refrigerator help overcome this. It is a gift brought by the development of science and technology. However, the reality of our law has fallen into the dogma of trials that have settled for the past, and has deprived the admissibility of evidence of video recording investigations through legislation and interpretation. It is regrettable that there has been a lack of consideration about whether it is possible to deprive certain types of evidence of the admissibility of evidence through legislation and whether the reasons are reasonable. The national punishment power, which is a means of realizing the rule of law, must be exercised correctly, appropriately, and impartially, which is a constitutional requirement. In particular, the power to punish as a judiciary must be fair and appear fair. To this end, all evidence, which is the data for finding the facts, must be allowed to enter the courtroom if it meets the general requirements for admissibility of evidence without being biased. Advanced criminal justice systems such as the UK, the US, Germany, and Japan all operate criminal justice systems with the possibility of using evidence open, and this is a global standard. In practice, video recordings such as CCTV and black boxes are recognized as evidence, and transcripts, which are hearsay evidence, are also recognized as evidence if they fall under the exception of the hearsay rule. There is no reason to treat it differently as a video recording investigation. Prohibiting the use of this certificate on the grounds that it is a video recording investigation is unconstitutional as it hinders the correct and fair exercise of The national punishment power. The speed of change in the world is dazzling. In order to prevent criminal justice from becoming an obstacle in a rapidly changing society, the status of video recording investigations must be restored as evidence. We should not be buried in exhausting debates anymore, but respond in time to new crimes emerging in a rapidly changing environment and crimes that are increasingly becoming more intelligent, organized, and internationalized. Now is the time for each of us to use our creativity for an effective future criminal justice system.\",\"PeriodicalId\":384688,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"The Korean Association of Criminal Procedure Law\",\"volume\":\"16 1\",\"pages\":\"0\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-06-30\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"The Korean Association of Criminal Procedure Law\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.34222/kdps.2023.15.2.217\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"The Korean Association of Criminal Procedure Law","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.34222/kdps.2023.15.2.217","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

作为纪录片文化的创新,从数字革命开始的录像调查,将现任和前任被告聚集在一个法庭上,使他们的陈述得以细细品味。现代刑法的检审分离制度,由于时间的滞后,增加了查明实质真相的难度,但像冰箱一样保持口供新鲜度的录像调查,克服了这一点。它是科学技术发展带来的礼物。然而,我国法律的现实已陷入过去解决的审判教条,并通过立法和解释剥夺了录像调查证据的可采性。令人遗憾的是,对于是否有可能通过立法剥夺某些类型的证据的可采性以及其理由是否合理,一直没有加以考虑。国家处罚权作为实现法治的一种手段,必须正确、恰当、公正地行使,这是宪法的要求。特别是,作为司法机构的惩罚权力必须是公平的,并且看起来是公平的。为此目的,所有证据,即查明事实的资料,如果符合证据可采性的一般要求而没有偏见,就必须允许进入法庭。英国、美国、德国、日本等先进的刑事司法制度都是在刑事司法系统中开放证据使用的可能性,这是一个全球标准。在实践中,闭路电视、黑匣子等录像被认定为证据,而作为传闻证据的笔录,如果属于传闻证据规则的例外,也被认定为证据。没有理由把它当作录像调查来对待。”以“录像调查”为由禁止使用该证书,是妨碍国家处罚权正确、公正行使的违宪行为。世界变化的速度令人眼花缭乱。为了防止刑事司法在急剧变化的社会中成为障碍,必须恢复录像调查作为证据的地位。我们不应该再陷入激烈的争论中,而应该及时应对瞬息万变的环境中出现的新犯罪和日益智能化、组织化、国际化的犯罪。现在是时候让我们每个人发挥我们的创造力,建立一个有效的未来刑事司法系统。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Thoughts on Restoring the Status of Video Recording Investigations
The video recording investigation, which began with the digital revolution as an innovation in documentary culture, brought present and former Defendant together in one court and made it possible to savor their statements. The separation of prosecution and trial adopted by the modern criminal law had the side effect of increasing the difficulty of discovering the substantive truth due to the time lag, but video recording investigations that maintain the freshness of statements like a refrigerator help overcome this. It is a gift brought by the development of science and technology. However, the reality of our law has fallen into the dogma of trials that have settled for the past, and has deprived the admissibility of evidence of video recording investigations through legislation and interpretation. It is regrettable that there has been a lack of consideration about whether it is possible to deprive certain types of evidence of the admissibility of evidence through legislation and whether the reasons are reasonable. The national punishment power, which is a means of realizing the rule of law, must be exercised correctly, appropriately, and impartially, which is a constitutional requirement. In particular, the power to punish as a judiciary must be fair and appear fair. To this end, all evidence, which is the data for finding the facts, must be allowed to enter the courtroom if it meets the general requirements for admissibility of evidence without being biased. Advanced criminal justice systems such as the UK, the US, Germany, and Japan all operate criminal justice systems with the possibility of using evidence open, and this is a global standard. In practice, video recordings such as CCTV and black boxes are recognized as evidence, and transcripts, which are hearsay evidence, are also recognized as evidence if they fall under the exception of the hearsay rule. There is no reason to treat it differently as a video recording investigation. Prohibiting the use of this certificate on the grounds that it is a video recording investigation is unconstitutional as it hinders the correct and fair exercise of The national punishment power. The speed of change in the world is dazzling. In order to prevent criminal justice from becoming an obstacle in a rapidly changing society, the status of video recording investigations must be restored as evidence. We should not be buried in exhausting debates anymore, but respond in time to new crimes emerging in a rapidly changing environment and crimes that are increasingly becoming more intelligent, organized, and internationalized. Now is the time for each of us to use our creativity for an effective future criminal justice system.
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
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
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
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
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 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信