关于我国社区矫正执行主体的探讨

发布时间：2018-05-03 23:25

本文选题：社区 + 公安机关　；参考：《西南政法大学》2009年硕士论文

【摘要】： 按照中国大陆地区现行法律的规定,对社区矫正对象的监督管理主体是公安机关,但是,由于公安机关集治安、侦查、行刑任务于一身,与非监禁刑执行的需求不符,与刑事司法机制运行规则有冲突,且其肩负的打击犯罪、维护社会治安等繁重任务令其无暇顾及对轻微刑事犯罪分子的监管职责,近年来,在对这种执行模式进行广泛批判的同时,刑事法学界和实践部门不得不寻求和论证一套更为合理有效的执行模式。自2003年最高人民检察院、最高人民法院、公安部、司法部联合下发《关于开展社区矫正工作试点的通知》以来,社区矫正试点逐步向全国范围扩展,“双主体”模式进入试行和磨合阶段,即社区矫正执行主体逐步更换为司法行政机关,公安机关转而成为配合角色。应当说,社区矫正推行至今已有一些时日,两种运行机制优劣应有所显现,对执行模式的比较研究有了一些经验和实践基础。加之,目前有关执行模式选择的学术观点呈现多元化,此时,立足预防犯罪和保护人权需要,结合社区矫正试点成果,梳理辨析相关主张及根据,论证执行模式的合理构建,是具有非常重要的理论和现实意义的。本文以此为题,试着探讨我国社区矫正执行主体的构建及如何加强其执法力度与效果问题,以期对我国社区矫正工作的发展略尽绵薄之力。本文除引言与结语外,正文共分四个部分,三万余字。第一部分:我国社区矫正现行的“双主体”结构及其特点。本部分简单介绍了公安机关与司法行政机关并存的社区矫正现行管理模式,指出正是法律与相关部委的不同授权从而产生了“双主体”结构,并造成了社区矫正执行过程中的诸多弊端。第二部分:对社区矫正执行主体理论争议的评析。除第一部分中概括列举的法律法规做出不同规定的理由外,本部分重点介绍了理论界在该问题上的分歧,以及提出的更具体的设想,在此基础上,本文对各方观点进行了正反两方面的分析。第三部分:社区矫正执行主体的应然归属。本部分首先分析了确定社区矫正执行权归属时应考虑的因素,之后明确提出本文观点——将我国社区矫正执行主体的构建分为两个步骤,即过渡模式和最终模式。并指出,在过渡阶段,由公安机关负责社区矫正中的刑事执行工作,司法行政机关中的基层司法所负责矫治工作;最终,在司法行政机关内部设立与监狱部门相并列的专门机构负责社区矫正工作。第四部分:实现执行权与相关权的良性互动。本部分将社区矫正执行权与治安权、司法权结合起来进行论述,并得出社区矫正与刑罚目的及任务相一致,有利于实现刑罚效益并保障人权的结论。
[Abstract]:According to the current laws in mainland China, the main body of supervision and management of the objects of community correction is the public security organs. However, as the public security organs gather the tasks of public order, investigation and execution, they do not conform to the requirements of the execution of non-custodial sentences. Conflicts with the rules governing the operation of criminal justice mechanisms, and their heavy tasks of combating crime and maintaining public order have prevented them from taking into account their supervisory responsibilities over minor criminal offenders. At the same time, criminal law circles and practice departments have to seek and demonstrate a more reasonable and effective execution model. Since 2003, when the Supreme people's Procuratorate, the Supreme people's Court, the Ministry of Public Security and the Ministry of Justice jointly issued a notice on the pilot project of community correction, the pilot project of community correction has been gradually expanded to the whole country. The mode of "double subject" has entered the stage of trial and running-in, that is, the executive subject of community correction is gradually replaced by judicial administrative organ, and the public security organ turns into a coordinating role. It should be said that it has been some time since the implementation of community correction, the advantages and disadvantages of the two operating mechanisms should be revealed, and the comparative study of the execution mode has some experience and practical basis. In addition, at present, the academic views on the choice of execution mode are diversified. At this time, based on the needs of crime prevention and human rights protection, combined with the experimental results of community correction, this paper analyzes and analyzes the relevant propositions and bases, and demonstrates the reasonable construction of the execution mode. Is of great theoretical and practical significance. This paper tries to discuss the construction of the main body of community correction and how to strengthen its law enforcement and effect in order to make a little contribution to the development of community correction in our country. In addition to the introduction and conclusion, the text is divided into four parts, more than 30,000 words. The first part: the current double-subject structure and its characteristics of community correction in China. This part briefly introduces the current management mode of community correction, which is coexisting with the public security organs and the judicial administrative organs, and points out that it is the different authorization of the law and the relevant ministries that gives rise to the "dual subject" structure. And has caused many malpractices in the execution process of community correction. The second part: comment on the theory dispute of community correction executive subject. In addition to the reasons for the different provisions outlined in the first part, this section focuses on the differences in the theoretical community on this issue, as well as the more specific ideas put forward, on the basis of which, In this paper, the views of the parties are analyzed in both positive and negative aspects. The third part: community correction executive subject should belong. This part first analyzes the factors that should be considered in determining the ownership of community correction executive right, and then puts forward the point of view that the construction of the subject of community correction execution in China is divided into two steps, that is, transition mode and final mode. It is also pointed out that in the transitional period, the public security organs are responsible for the criminal execution of community corrections, and the basic judicial institutions in the judicial administration organs are responsible for the correction work. Within the judicial administration, a special institution, parallel to the prison department, is responsible for community correction. The fourth part: realize the benign interaction between executive power and related right. In this part, the author discusses the right of community correction, the right of public order and judicial power, and draws the conclusion that community correction is consistent with the purpose and task of punishment, which is beneficial to the realization of penalty benefit and the protection of human rights.
【学位授予单位】：西南政法大学
【学位级别】：硕士
【学位授予年份】：2009
【分类号】：D926.8

【引证文献】