Comparison of the right to silence system and the audio and video recording system in investigation

Article 121 of the new Criminal Procedure Law: When investigators interrogate a criminal suspect, they may make audio or video recordings of the interrogation process; In cases where a sentence of life imprisonment or death might be given, or in cases of other major crimes, an audio or video recording shall be made of the interrogation process.

The audio or video recording shall be conducted throughout the entire process, maintaining integrity.

The detainee shall be immediately sent to the detention center for detention after staying, and must not exceed 24 hours at the latest. After arrest, the arrested person shall be immediately sent to the detention center for detention; Investigators' interrogation of detainees shall be conducted in the detention center. Combined with the establishment of law enforcement informatization by judicial organs, implement audio and video recordings in places of interrogation, detention, court hearings, and supervision.

Comprehensively implement a system of audio and video recordings of the investigation and interrogation process, clearly stipulating that in cases where life imprisonment or the death penalty might be given, or in cases of other major crimes, the interrogation process must be videotaped or videotaped; The audio or video recording shall be conducted throughout the entire process, maintaining integrity.

The start time is recorded throughout the process, and the end time is done.

human rights, to protect the legitimate rights and interests of criminal suspects.

Audio and video recordings are the perfection of the law.

It is not required by law, it is an internal notice, a countermeasure.

No, we citizens do not have the right to silence, and from the analysis of national conditions, we do not have a tradition of implementing the system of the right to silence, and the implementation of the system of the right to silence is too demanding for the police, and criminals can easily use it to get away with it.

The right to silence cannot be invoked if the technology is insufficient? Technological deficiencies should increase investment in advances in criminal investigation methods, rather than remedies through human rights violations.

No excuse can hinder the progress of the rule of law, and China will eventually move towards the rule of law and human rights!

China does not seem to have the right to silence. The right to silence is to some extent the embodiment of the legal concepts of "presumption of innocence", "burden of proof", "protection of the rights of suspects", and "procedural supremacy".

At present, there is no provision on the right to silence in China's legal documents, and the understanding of it only exists in the theoretical circles.

The right to silence system** When exactly do you want it I provide it to you.

1. None of them are expressly stipulated.

The phenomenon of extorting confessions by torture is recognized as an indisputable fact in China, and the use of the right to silence from the perspective of litigation mechanism is the most effective way to eliminate the extortion of confessions by torture. 2. So far, there is no sufficient and convincing evidence to show that giving criminal suspects and defendants the right to silence is necessarily detrimental to the fight against crime.

As a system that conforms to the idea of modern democracy and the legal system, it is only a matter of time before the right to silence is introduced into China, but while seeing the positive role of the right to silence, we should also think of some negative effects of the right in judicial adjudication, and we should better introduce this system in view of the situation of "unadaptability" to our country.

Hello so far, there is no in our country"The right to silence"The system is lenient in confession and strict in resistance, but the procedural law also stipulates that only the confession of the offender and no other evidence cannot be convicted, that is to say, in fact, at present, it is still the obligation of citizens to cooperate with the public security organs in investigating and collecting evidence. This is very different from people in the West who are not obliged to prove their crimes, and I don't know if it will help you.

No, the law obliges criminals to confess their crimes, which I think is a strange provision