李昌奎故意杀人强奸案评析

发布时间：2018-05-04 14:49

本文选题：司法与民意的互动 + 再审程序　；参考：《湖南大学》2012年硕士论文

【摘要】：李昌奎案件是近年来我国司法机关与民众极端对立的一个典型。本文主要通过文献研究法和实证研究法，探讨了本案中的三个争议焦点，力图全面分析法院在本案的处理过程中的对与错，为今后法院判决相似案件提供一个借鉴，从而避免全民否决审判结果这一现象的出现。本文从三个方面讨论了该案件，论述了是否该判死刑、是否应当启动再审程序和本案法院如何面对民意。本文认为，首先，在现有的法制环境下，找不到李昌奎可以从轻处罚的理由，因而该判死刑立即执行；其次，死刑缓期执行与死刑立即执行都是死刑，差别只在毫厘之间，属于法院的自由裁量权范围内，因而二审终审判了死缓，虽然判决书上的理由不够充分，但我们也应该认同和执行，法院也应该有自信“力排众议”，除非判决确有错误，否则不能轻易启动再审程序，同时本案中再审程序的启动不是出自法院的本意，不是其“主动”或者“受启发”地“认为”原审判决确有错误，所以再审程序的启动就不合现行法律的规定，也违反了一事不再理的原则；最后，在本案中司法在与民意互动的过程中做的不好，没有起到很好的引导作用，最终形成了尖锐的对立，，因而本文希望理清民意对司法的功能与作用，强调司法在面对民意时应该更有自信、更主动，民意是杂乱的，有时是不理性的，但民意最终会趋向理性和统一，所以司法机关要加强引导，加强从纷乱的民意中加以筛选和吸收，并通过一个个案例加强民众对司法的信任，如此，才能提高民众的法律素质和法律信仰。本文的创新之处主要有两点：其一，探讨并区分了“主动”认为、“受启发”认为和“被迫”地认为，从而得出本案中云南省高级人民法院启动再审程序不合法，因为其“被迫”地认为原审程序不合法，这并非出自其本意；其二，强调司法机关要加强自信，虽然要尊重民意，吸收民意，但更要坚持其对法律的理解，只要不是出了非改不可的大错，轻易不能对民意妥协，因为“法官只对法律负责”。
[Abstract]:The case of Li Changkui is a typical example of the extreme opposition between the judicial organs and the public in China in recent years. This article mainly through the literature research method and the empirical research method, has probed into the three dispute focal points in the present case, tries to comprehensively analyze the court in the case processing process right and wrong, provides a reference for the future court judgment similar case. In order to avoid the popular veto of the trial results of this phenomenon. This paper discusses the case from three aspects, discusses whether the death penalty should be imposed, whether the retrial procedure should be initiated and how the court in this case should face the public opinion. This article holds that, first, under the existing legal environment, Li Changkui can not find a reason why he can be given a lighter punishment, so the death penalty should be sentenced to execution immediately; secondly, the suspension of execution and the immediate execution of the death penalty are both the death penalty, the difference being only in millimetres. It is within the discretion of the court, so the death sentence is suspended at the end of the second trial. Although the reasons in the judgment are not strong enough, we should also recognize and enforce it. The court should also be confident that it "stands by the masses" unless the judgment is wrong. Otherwise, the retrial procedure cannot be initiated easily, and the commencement of the retrial procedure in this case was not the intention of the court, nor was it "on its own initiative" or "inspired" that "the original trial judgment was indeed wrong," Therefore, the commencement of the retrial procedure is not in accordance with the provisions of the current law, and it also violates the principle of non bis in idem. Finally, in this case, the judiciary did not do well in the process of interacting with public opinion and did not play a very good guiding role. This article hopes to clarify the function and role of public opinion in the administration of justice, emphasizing that the judiciary should be more confident and active in the face of public opinion, and that public opinion is chaotic and sometimes irrational. But public opinion will eventually tend to be rational and unified. Therefore, the judicial organs should strengthen guidance, strengthen the selection and absorption of public opinion from the confusion, and strengthen the people's trust in the administration of justice through one case after another. In this way, In order to improve the people's legal quality and legal belief. There are two main innovations in this paper: first, it discusses and distinguishes between "initiative", "inspired" and "forced", so that the Yunnan Provincial higher people's Court starts the retrial procedure is illegal in this case. This is because it was "forced" to believe that the original trial procedure was illegal, which was not due to its intention. Secondly, it stressed that the judiciary should strengthen its self-confidence. Although it should respect public opinion and absorb public opinion, it should insist on its understanding of the law. As long as it is not a mistake that must be changed, it is easy not to compromise with public opinion, because "judges are only responsible for the law."
【学位授予单位】：湖南大学
【学位级别】：硕士
【学位授予年份】：2012
【分类号】：D926;D920.5

【参考文献】