Allowed and forbidden pressure on a suspect in the course of interrogation process
Dozvoljeni i nedozvoljeni pritisak na osumnjičenog tokom procesa saslušanja
MetadataShow full item record
In majority of cases during the interrogation process, a suspect would not say the truth about the facts that could lead to his/her sentence. This is normal and expected behaviour of every person in such a situation. As a consequence of this, law enforcement officers cannot come to the truth and sometimes use forbidden methods and means. Forbidden means and methods used in the course of interrogation have changed through history but the essence is the same - they endanger both physical and psychological integrity of a person, and sometimes they can go as far as to take the most valuable thing away from a person, i.e. his/her life. Namely, in contrast to methods and means used to obtain statements in inquisitorial procedure, and which were ones of the most inhuman in history, today's development of science and technology enabled some new, more subtle but not less brutal methods which imply the use of various electric and electronic devices and psycho-pharmaceuticals. Although they cause... great suffering and pains, they most often do not leave any visible traces of their application, the consequence of which is that their use is hard to prove. The application of forbidden methods and means during interrogation not only violates the rights of a person, but there is a serious risk that the person would admit to committing a crime that it actually did not. In order to prevent this there are many legal regulations of internal laws, as well as international documents trying to ensure the establishing of truth in a humane and socially acceptable manner. However, do such regulations deprive police and legal institutions entirely of the possibility to influence a suspect in order to persuade him/her to cooperation? In its nature the interrogation represents so-called coercive communication and accordingly certain "pressure" on the suspect makes an integral part of it. Thus every initiation of verbal content to the suspect (questions, comments..) influences to a certain degree the intellectual, willing or emotional aspects of his/her personality and represents a certain form of "pressure". If the "pressure" is such that violates freedom and rights of the suspect, then it is legally forbidden, as a rule, and in that case the obtained statement would not have any significance and the law enforcement officers that applied such pressure might take the consequences for their conduct. Therefore, certain intensity of "pressure" on the suspect must be present during interrogation. Where the limit between allowed and forbidden "pressure" on the suspect during interrogation is and when we could say that a suspect's statement has been given willingly are the questions to which the author attempts to give answers. Suspect's free will is not an absolute category so law enforcement officers may use many various tactical procedures to "pressurize" the suspect's will during interrogation in order to get the truth. However, this "pressure" has limits and some of them are determined by the appropriate provisions of the Constitution, as well as by the appropriate provisions of other legal acts (first of all Criminal Procedure Act) that must be in accordance with it. In all other cases that are strictly forbidden by the law, the limit of "pressure" on the suspect is set by basic rights and freedoms belonging to every person as a human being. Anyone who dares cross that limit must take consequences, and the statement obtained in such a manner must not have any validity. In addition to this, all other evidence which might have been obtained legally but based on the illicitly-obtained statement must not have any validity but they also must be rejected as a "fruit from a poisoned tree".
Osumnjičeni tokom saslušanja u najvećem broju slučajeva neće istinito da iskazuje o činjenicama koje mogu voditi njegovoj osudi. To je normalno i očekivano ponašanje svakog čoveka koji se nalazi u takvoj situaciji. Kao posledica toga, pripadnici policije u nemogućnosti da dođu do istinitog iskaza pribegavaju katkad primeni nedozvoljenih metoda i sredstava. Autor pravi kratak osvrt na neke od zakonom izričito zabranjenih metoda saslušanja (mučenje, narkoanaliza, obmana, pretnja, lobotomija i hipnoza) i izvodi zaključak da nijedna država koja pretenduje da bude savremena, demokratska i pravna ne sme dozvoliti da se do istine dolazi na način koji je u suprotnosti sa pravnim i etičkim standardima savremenog društva. Međutim, autor ističe da sloboda volje osumnjičenog nije apsolutna kategorija i da izvesno "pritiskanje" volje osumnjičenog tokom saslušanja mora postojati. Pružajući odgovor na pitanje kada se za neki iskaz može reći da je dobrovoljno dat, on nastoji da ukaže gde je granica iz...među dozvoljenog i nedozvoljenog "pritiska" na osumnjičenog tokom procesa saslušanja.
Keywords:saslušanje osumnjičenog / nedozvoljene metode dobijanja iskaza / sloboda volje osumnjičenog / iznuđivanje iskaza
Source:Nauka, bezbednost, policija, 2005, 10, 1, 115-131
- Kriminalističko- policijska akademija, Beograd