| 英文摘要 |
Understanding and justifying the principle of non-self-incrimination must be switched from a functional perspective to a duty perspective. Neither the dilemma model, the fair trial model, nor the criminal law model can draw a reasonable boundary for the scope of protection of the principle of non-self-incrimination. The very nature of the principle of non self-incrimination is that it relieves the defendant of the duty to be a witness. Whether the defendant or a third party, as long as they have a civil status, they are in principle obliged to testify. Influenced by the principle of presumption of innocence, the defendant must be presumed to be innocent until the court passes a guilty verdict. However, once the defendant enters the criminal proceedings, he must be subjected to aggravated suspicion and thus to the dangers of the criminal program. Therefore, the defendant is a special victim in the criminal proceedings, and his civic duty must be limited to the scope of negative assistance. In addition, it cannot be argued that a mediation scheme in the Bankrupt-Decision can be universally applied to all conflict situations, nor can it be directly appealed to the freedom of legislation to create a mediation scheme. Different types of conflicts should be taken into account in the specific design of the mediation scheme. |
