In South Africa, as in most jurisdictions which profess to be based on an open and democratic society based on human dignity, equality and freedom, the right against compelled self-incrimination is a guaranteed Constitutional right. This study is prompted by the realization that the right against self-incrimination is being undermined and eroded by an aspect of South Africa’s bail laws. The current study addresses the constitutional validity of section 60(11B)(c) of the Criminal Procedure Act 51 of 1977 in so far as it allows for the admission of incriminating evidence at trial, in contravention of the accused’s right against self-incrimination, which incriminatory evidence was tendered by the applicant during a bail application in circumstances where the applicant was compelled to prove that he would be acquitted at trial where reliance is placed on a weak State’s case in proving exceptional circumstances in compliance with section 60(11)(a) of the Criminal Procedure Act 51 of 1977. Whilst section 60(11B)(c) of the Criminal Procedure Act 51 of 1977 is undoubtedly aimed at combatting crime, the pre-occupation with crime control measures threatens to undermine individual liberty and poses a threat to our Constitutional project of building a human rights culture. I advance an argument which supports the view that section 60(11B)(c) of the Criminal Procedure Act 51 of 1977 is unconstitutional, in the above context, in that it infringes upon the accused’s right against compelled self-incrimination at trial and does not amount to a justifiable limitation on the rights of an accused in an open and democratic society based on human dignity, equality and freedom. I also advance an alternative legal remedy aimed at fulfilling the initial mischief which Section 60(11B)(c) of the Criminal Procedure Act 51 of 1977 was designed to prevent in order to bring the section in line with the Constitution and a rights-based society. / Mini Dissertation (LLM)--University of Pretoria, 2017. / Procedural Law / LLM / Unrestricted

證人以不自證己罪為由主張拒絕證言權之相關問題，在刑事審判過程中主要牽涉四大層面：一為此項拒絕證言權之適用範圍為何，亦即證人所得主張權利之射程範圍是否僅止於供述證據，抑或涵蓋其他刑事訴訟中的強制處分、提出命令；二為審判程序中證人應如何主張、行使此項權利，而一旦證人主張此權利，司法機關應如何審查以為准駁；三為證人行使拒絕證言權之舉，對於本案被告案件中，乃至於證人日後改列被告時，可否評價（是否具有證據能力）、抑或應如何評價之（證明力問題）；四為若檢察官或法院未盡告知義務告知證人有此項權利致使證人為自陷己罪之陳述時，該陳述對於本案被告案件中，乃至於證人日後改列被告時，可否評價（是否具有證據能力）、抑或應如何評價（證明力問題）。上開層面即為本文探討之主軸。

Made available in DSpace on 2016-04-26T20:23:41Z (GMT). No. of bitstreams: 1 Marcio Rached Millani.pdf: 1174248 bytes, checksum: a7b10e5dc4901736fd7dbffc2c9099f5 (MD5) Previous issue date: 2015-04-28 / Several countries adopted in their Constitutions or in their infra-laws the right to not self-incrimination. This right is also guaranteed by several international treaties which were incorporated to the internal laws of several countries, including Brazil. It can be observed that the texts adopted by the countries are similar and include, in general, the right of the investigation or the accused remain silent, that is, the right not to testify against themselves in criminal investigation or proceeding instituted for the determination of a particular offense. In short, investigated or defendants are not compelled to assist in the production of evidence in cases filed against them. While texts of legal provisions that enshrine the right to self-incrimination are similar and in some cases almost identical, it is observed that our jurisprudence conferred much greater extension to the right than that observed in comparative law coverage, and in some cases this expansion eventually become ineffective legal provisions in force, as happened with the recent sealing of the use of certain alcohol tests for evidence of intoxication. Several arguments can be raised to try to explain why the right to not self-incrimination have become an almost absolute right, among them: an erroneous interpretation of its contents; not weighting of conflicting values in the case concert; the notion that the individual s body cannot, under any circumstances, be used as a test object; the exaggerated importance given to individual rights; and the confusion between authority and authoritarianism that took place in our society after the end of the dictatorial regime / Vários países adotam em suas Constituições ou em suas leis infraconstitucionais o direito à não autoincriminação. Tal direito é também garantido por vários tratados internacionais que se incorporaram às legislações internas dos vários países, entre eles o Brasil. Pode-se observar que as redações adotadas pelos países são similares e abrangem, de modo geral, o direito de o investigado ou o réu permanecerem em silêncio, vale dizer, o direito de não deporem contra si mesmos em investigação ou processo penal instaurados para a apuração de determinado delito. Em suma, não são os investigados ou réus compelidos a auxiliar na produção da prova em processos contra eles instaurados. Conquanto as redações dos dispositivos legais que consagram o direito à não autoincriminação sejam similares e em alguns casos quase idênticas, observa-se que a nossa jurisprudência conferiu ao referido direito uma abrangência muito maior do que a observada no direito comparado, sendo que em algumas hipóteses tal ampliação acabou por tornar sem efeito dispositivos legais em vigor, como ocorreu com a recente vedação da utilização de determinados testes de alcoolemia para comprovação da embriaguez. Várias hipóteses podem ser levantadas para tentar explicar a razão de o direito à não autoincriminação ter se tornado um direito quase absoluto, entre elas: uma errônea interpretação de seu conteúdo; a não ponderação dos valores em conflito no caso concreto; a noção de que o corpo do indivíduo não pode, em hipótese nenhuma, ser utilizado como objeto de prova; a exagerada importância conferida aos direitos individuais; e a confusão entre autoridade e autoritarismo que ocorreu na nossa sociedade após o término do regime ditatorial

Thesis (Ph. D.)--University of Texas at Austin, 2004. / Supervisors: Maxwell B. Stinchcombe and R. Preston McAfee. Vita. Includes bibliographical references.

Made available in DSpace on 2014-12-17T14:27:29Z (GMT). No. of bitstreams: 1 RochesterOA_DISSERT.pdf: 1967968 bytes, checksum: e042fe7c363667513adbe806fe52d94f (MD5) Previous issue date: 2013-11-25 / Coordena??o de Aperfei?oamento de Pessoal de N?vel Superior / The right against self-incrimination is a fundamental right that works in the criminal prosecution, and therefore deserves a study supported by the general theory of criminal procedure. The right has a vague origin, and despite the various historical accounts only arises when there is a criminal procedure structured that aims to limit the State?s duty-power to punish. The only system of criminal procedure experienced that reconciles with seal self-incrimination is the accusatory model. The inquisitorial model is based on the construction of a truth and obtaining the confession at any cost, and is therefore incompatible with the right in study. The consecration of the right arises with the importance that fundamental rights have come to occupy in the Democratic Constitutional States. In the Brazilian experience before 1988 was only possible to recognize that self-incrimination represented a procedural burden for accused persons. Despite thorough debate in the Constituent Assembly, the right remains consecrated in a textual formula that?s closer to the implementation made by the Supreme Court of the United States, known as "Miranda warnings", than the text of the Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution that established originally the right against self-incrimination with a constitutional status. However, the imprecise text does not prevent the consecration of the principle as a fundamental right in Brazilian law. The right against self-incrimination is a right that should be observed in the Criminal Procedure and relates to several of his canons, such as the the presumption of not guilty, the accusatory model, the distribution of the burden of proof, and especially the right of defense. Because it a fundamental right, the prohibition of self-incrimination deserves a proper study to her constitutional nature. For the definition of protected persons is important to build a material concept of accused, which is different of the formal concept over who is denounced on the prosecution. In the objective area of protection, there are two objects of protection of the norm: the instinct of self-preservation of the subject and the ability to self-determination. Configuring essentially a evidence rule in criminal procedure, the analysis of the case should be based on standards set previously to indicate respect for the right. These standard include the right to information of the accused, the right to counsel and respect the voluntary participation. The study of violations cases, concentrated on the element of voluntariness, starting from the definition of what is or is not a coercion violative of self-determination. The right faces new challenges that deserve attention, especially the fight against terrorism and organized crime that force the development of tools, resources and technologies about proves, methods increasingly invasive and hidden, and allow the use of information not only for criminal prosecution, but also for the establishment of an intelligence strategy in the development of national and public security / O direito contra a autoincrimina??o ? um direito fundamental que incide sobre a persecu??o criminal, e por isso merece um estudo apropriado amparado pela teoria geral do processo penal. O direito possui uma origem remota imprecisa. Apesar dos relatos hist?ricos mais diversos, apenas surge quando existe um processo penal estruturado que tem como objetivo a limita??o do dever-poder de punir do Estado. O ?nico sistema de processo penal experimentado que se compatibiliza com a veda??o a autoincrimina??o ? o modelo acusat?rio. O modelo inquisitivo baseia-se na constru??o de uma verdade e obtens?o da confiss?o a qualquer custo, e por isso ? incompat?vel com o direito em estudo. A consagra??o do direito surge com a import?ncia que os direitos fundamentais passaram a ter nos Estados Democr?ticos Constitucionais. Na experi?ncia brasileira, antes de 1988 somente era poss?vel reconhecer que a autoincrimina??o representava um ?nus processual ao acusado. Apesar do debate aprofundado na Assembl?ia Constituinte, o direito restou consagrado em uma f?rmula textual que mais se aproxima da concretiza??o feita pela Suprema Corte dos Estados Unidos, conhecido como avisos de Miranda , do que do texto da Quinta Emenda da Constitui??o Americana que estabeleceu originariamente em sede constitucional o direito contra a autoincrimina??o. Todavia, a imprecis?o textual n?o impede a consagra??o do direito como norma fundamental no ordenamento jur?dico brasileiro. A veda??o de autoincrimina??o ? um direito que deve ser observado no Processo Penal e se relaciona com diversos de seus c?nones, tais como o a presun??o de n?o culpabilidade, o modelo acusat?rio, a distribui??o do ?nus probat?rio e especialmente o exerc?cio do direito de ampla defesa. Por ser um direito fundamental, a veda??o de autoincrimina??o merece um estudo adequado a sua natureza constitucional. Para a defini??o dos sujeitos protegidos ? importante a constru??o de um conceito material de acusado, que n?o se confunde com o conceito formal daquele denunciado na a??o penal. No ?mbito de prote??o objetivo, dois bens jur?dicos s?o o objeto de prote??o da norma: o instinto de autopreserva??o do sujeito e a capacidade de autodetermina??o. Configurando essencialmente em uma regra quanto as provas no Processo Penal, a an?lise do caso concreto deve se basear em crit?rios previamente fixados para indicar o respeito ao direito. Esses crit?rios s?o estabelecidos, incluindo o direito de informa??o do acusado, o acompanhamento por defensor t?cnico e o respeito a voluntariedade na participa??o. O estudo das hip?teses de viola??o se concentram no elemento da voluntariedade, a partir da defini??o do que consiste ou n?o em coer??o violadora da autodetermina??o. O direito enfrenta novos desafios que merecem aten??o, com destaque para o combate ao terrorismo e a criminalidade organizada que for?am ao desenvolvimento de ferramentas, meios probat?rios e tecnologias cada vez mais invasivas e ocultas e permitem a utiliza??o das informa??es n?o somente para a persecu??o criminal, mas tamb?m para o estabelecimento de uma intelig?ncia no desenvolvimento da seguran?a nacional e p?blica

Over the last several decades, researchers have documented how impaired reasoning by adult offenders impeded the intelligent waiver of Miranda rights. Logically, it stands to reason that juveniles – who are developmentally less mature and have less life experience than their adult counterparts – would possess even greater impairment, thereby heightening their risk for invalid Miranda waivers. Juvenile Miranda research supports this notion; with some researchers finding that psychosocial maturity, among other factors, affect a juvenile’s understanding of their rights. Yet, relatively few studies have examined its relation to Miranda reasoning and decision-making. Thus, the current study investigated the specific role of maturity in juveniles’ Miranda comprehension and reasoning. Participants included 236 legally-involved juveniles recruited from either a juvenile detention center or a juvenile justice alternative education program. The effects of psychosocial maturity were examined on a variety of Miranda-related measures and assessed a broad range of Miranda abilities. It was found that, in general, immature juveniles performed more poorly on all Miranda measures as compared to their mature counterparts. However, the impact of maturity varied considerably depending on the ability. Specifically, maturity was most important in the context of Miranda reasoning. As a novel addition to the literature, the current study also investigated the effects of developmental timing on maturity (i.e., immaturity-delayed versus immaturity-expected) on Miranda abilities.

Millions of custodial suspects waive their rights each year without the benefit of legal counsel. The question posed to psychologists in disputed Miranda waivers is whether this waiver decision was, knowing, intelligent, and voluntary. Mental health professionals must be aware of potential barriers to Miranda comprehension to provide expert opinions regarding a defendant's competency to waive rights. The current study examined how Miranda warning reading level, length, and method of administration affects Miranda comprehension. Recently arrested detainees at Grayson County Jail were administered oral and written Miranda warnings from the Miranda Statements Scale (MSS; Rogers, 2005) to measure their comprehension of the warnings. Surprisingly low levels of Miranda comprehension were found for most warnings. For all warnings at or above 8th grade, a substantial minority (27.1% - 39.6%) of defendants exhibited failed (i.e., < 50% understanding) Miranda comprehension. Regardless of other variables, oral administrations resulted in a substantially larger number of defendants with failed Miranda comprehension. Implications for public policy and clinical practice are discussed.

Made available in DSpace on 2016-04-26T20:26:15Z (GMT). No. of bitstreams: 1 Marcia Caceres Dias Yokoyama.pdf: 787524 bytes, checksum: e05abda79ee5e37b0856957f755a777d (MD5) Previous issue date: 2007-11-07 / Conselho Nacional de Desenvolvimento Científico e Tecnológico / The modern Criminal Lawsuit has the remarkable characteristic of looking at the imputed person as someone who has rights, to privilege the biggest principle of the human being, conquered gradually. To start from the comprehension of the basis of the right to the silence, campared to the guided principle of the Democratic State of Right, emanates the logical of the doctrinal, the Legislator and the applicator of right to get together in order to give an exact application to the institute and its correspondings. The interrogation of an accused in a penal lawsuit, chance for him to be heard by the authority to present his version of the facts and to exercise his right of self-defense, since the old times, has changed a lot in its penal lawsuit system according to the ideological-social-cultural mentality of the historical moment. But the evolution of Science and Philosophy made new methods of investigation to come out. The accused started to be seen not as an evidence object but as someone who had rights. The right to remain silent started to be accepted as assurance of privacy and mainly as deduction of the principle against the self-incrimination. The study of principles which honor the right of being silent and its reflexes, and also of the investigation, makes evident the need of a discussion around the subject. It happens through the right of information, the supposed innocence, the contradiction, the wide defense, the prohibition of illicit evidences. The right to remain silent extends to all inquired person at the moment of his prision and in another case, by public officers, and also in the police investigation phase, in the instruction of the penal lawsuit and of parliamentary and administrative procedures, even when he is the witness or concerning to self-incriminative facts. So, it works in every moment that the inquired individual finds himself in front of answers which can harm him. It s a subjective public right that prevents disadvantageous interpretations against the one who is remaining silent. For its full exercise, it is necessary the information of this right to the titular and its extension as an exercise of free and aware will. The right of not being obliged to prove against himself permits to the accused not to help in producing evidences, translation of the right to preserve the privacy and inertness and specially the imputed person s spontaneous acts. And this work treats all this complexity in a unpretentious way / O moderno direito processual penal tem a destacada característica de avistar o imputado como sujeito de direitos a privilegiar o princípio maior da dignidade da pessoa humana, conquistado paulatinamente. A partir da compreensão do fundamento da garantia do direito ao silêncio, em cotejo com os princípios norteadores do Estado Democrático de Direito, emana a lógica da consonância do doutrinador, legislador e operador do direito de unirem-se para dar uma exata aplicação ao instituto com suas vertentes. O interrogatório do acusado no processo penal, oportunidade em que será ouvido pela autoridade para apresentar sua versão dos fatos e exercer seu direito de autodefesa, desde os tempos remotos, sofreu grandes alterações na sistemática processual de acordo com a mentalidade ideológico-social-cultural do momento histórico. Mas a evolução da ciência fez surgir novos métodos de investigação. O acusado passou a ser visto não como objeto da prova, mas como sujeito de direitos. O direito de silenciar passou a ser aceito como garantia da intimidade e, principalmente, como corolário do princípio contra a autoincriminação. O estudo dos princípios que prestigiam o direito ao silêncio e seus reflexos, bem como do interrogatório, evidencia a necessidade de debater o tema. Realiza-se através do direito à informação, da presunção de inocência, do contraditório, da ampla defesa, da proibição de provas ilícitas. O direito ao silêncio estende-se a toda pessoa questionada no momento da sua prisão e fora desta, por agentes públicos, bem assim na fase investigativa policial, na instrução do processo penal e dos procedimentos parlamentares e administrativos, mesmo quando estiver na qualidade de testemunha quanto a fatos auto-incriminatórios. Cabe em todo momento em que o indivíduo perquirido vê-se diante de respostas que possam prejudicá-lo. Trata-se de direito público subjetivo impeditivo da interpretação desfavorável contra aquele que silencia. Para seu pleno exercício, faz-se necessária a informação tanto deste direito ao titular como da amplitude de seu alcance como exercício da vontade livre e consciente, para que possa ser exercido plenamente. O direito de não ser obrigado a fazer prova contra si permite ao imputado não colaborar na produção da prova, tradução do exercício do direito de preservação da intimidade e inércia e, sobretudo, do agir espontâneo do imputado. É essa a complexidade tratada no presente trabalho

O princípio da não autoincriminação (ou princípio nemo tenetur se detegere) constitui não só um dos mais importantes princípios aplicáveis no contexto da produção probatória, mas também um dos princípios fundamentais do processo penal. O seu estudo está diretamente relacionado à tensão existente entre o interesse público na persecução penal e o interesse do indivíduo, no que diz respeito à observância das garantias fundamentais. A evolução, estrutura, alcance e as restrições ao referido princípio serão analisadas sob o enfoque do direito comparado, exercício este que nos propomos a ensaiar privilegiando uma referência abreviada à experiência americana. Após uma breve incursão sobre os sistemas processuais penais, a busca da verdade e os poderes do juiz temas intimamente relacionados ao assunto principal trataremos, sem a pretensão de esgotar o assunto, da dimensão assumida pelo privilege against self-incrimination no direito processual penal estadunidense e, posteriormente, do alcance do princípio da não autoincriminação no ordenamento brasileiro. Tendo em vista a matriz costumeira do Direito norte-americano, as linhas sobre o privilege serão traçadas, sobretudo, por meio da análise dos julgados da Suprema Corte. No ordenamento pátrio, o direito de não produzir prova contra si mesmo será tratado à luz dos entendimentos doutrinários distintos. O enfoque, em ambos os ordenamentos, dar-se-á também sob o prisma do direito ao silêncio, interrogatório, provas que dependem da colaboração do acusado, princípio da proporcionalidade e consequências advindas da violação ao princípio. / The privilege against self-incrimination (also known as nemo tenetur se detegere) is not only one of the most important rights in the context of evidence, but also a fundamental principle of criminal procedure. The study is intimately related to the tension between publics interest in punishment, in one side, and the preservation of a persons rights, on the other. The evolution, structure, scope and restrictions to this principle will be analyzed from the standpoint of comparative law, which we intend to accomplish by making a brief reference to the American experience. After a short foray concerning to the systems of criminal procedure, search for the truth and the powers of the judge topics that are closely related to the main subject we will discourse, without pretending to exhaust the theme, about the extent assumed by the privilege against self-incrimination in USAs criminal procedure and, subsequently, the dimension of the privilege against self-incrimination in brazilians criminal process. Given the peculiarities of the American Legal system, based on the concept of precedence, the lines on the privilege will be drawn, especially, through the analysis of U. S. Supreme Court cases. When it comes to brazilians procedure, the right against self-incrimination will be treated throughout the different doctrinal understandings. The focus in both jurisdictions will also be developed through the perspective of the right to remain silent, cross-examination, evidences that depends on the defendants cooperation, the principle of proportionality and the consequences resulting from the violation of the privilege.

Univ., Diss.--Göttingen, 2004. / Literaturverz. S. 291 - 317.