我国案例指导制度探析

发布时间：2018-04-27 05:32

本文选题：毒品案件 + 刑事法律　；参考：《兰州大学》2014年硕士论文

【摘要】：案例指导制度也是伴随着刑事法律不统一现象逐渐被法律界人士所关注,“同案同判”是其最通俗的表达。将案例上升为明确的制度的方式,发挥指导性作用对统一刑事法律适用。在现在有制度范畴和现行司法体制的框架上确定指导性案例显得特别重要。在办理一起运输毒品海洛因18克的抗诉案件过程中,一审法院以被告人吸食毒品为由,适用了最高人民法院在中高级法官培训班上的会议精神,认定吸毒人员运输18克毒品海洛应属于自己吸食范畴,以非法持有毒品罪进行了定罪处罚,并且该精神与相关的会议纪要在某些方面有一定的相似甚至是突破,部分地区也据此在召开“院长、检察长、公安局长”三长联席会议时进行了相应的规定。而在同一地区,另外一个基层法院在判决一起相同案情的案件时却是适用了运输毒品的条款。同样的案情,但是在同一地区都存在这样悬殊的判决差异和不同认识,归根结底还是要回到法律适用和刑法的渊源问题上来,如何规范刑事司法解释的适用,如何使之系统化、规范化就是摆在当前的问题。对该问题的研究也是想通过自己所办理的毒品案件说起,如何使我国的刑事司法解释适用更加规范,另外也应当借鉴判例法的相关做法,进一步完善、规范我国的刑事立法体系和规范刑事审判工作,避免在审判实践中的认识差异、量刑差异局面。笔者认为将指导性案例的效力定位于司法解释,同时与现有的刑事司法解释分工、区别,对案例指导制度的落实很有裨益。另外,虽然案例指导制度有明显的进步,但是作为一项可能深刻影响刑事法律规范适用的制度,尤其是尚在初期运行的制度,仍然需要在案例的选择标准、案例的创制主体、案例的上报与评审、公开与废止、公开格式等方面予以明确、详细的规制。案例指导制度要重视从根本上提升司法自治能力和司法的开放过程,推动我国司法进程朝着社会正义的目标不断接近。
[Abstract]:Case guidance system is also accompanied by the phenomenon of disunity of criminal law gradually paid attention to by the legal profession, "concurrent adjudication" is its most popular expression. Raise the case to a clear system, play a guiding role in the application of unified criminal law. It is particularly important to identify guiding cases within the framework of the present system and the current judicial system. In the course of handling a protest case involving 18 grams of heroin and drug transport, the court of first instance applied the spirit of the meeting of the Supreme people's Court at the training course for middle and senior judges on the grounds that the accused took drugs. Determining that the transportation of 18 grams of drugs by drug addicts should fall within the scope of their own consumption, that they have been convicted and punished for the crime of illegal possession of drugs, and that this spirit is similar to, or even breakthrough in, some aspects of the relevant minutes of the meeting. According to this, some regions have made corresponding regulations when holding the joint meeting of "Premier, Procurator General and Public Security Director". In the same district, another grassroots court applied the drug transport clause in a case of the same case. The same case, but in the same region, there are such wide differences in judgment and different understandings. In the final analysis, it is still necessary to return to the issue of the application of the law and the origin of the criminal law, how to standardize the application of the criminal judicial interpretation, and how to systematize it. Standardization is the problem at hand. The research on this issue is also intended to start with the drug cases handled by ourselves, how to make the criminal judicial interpretation of our country more standardized, in addition, we should learn from the relevant practice of case law, and further improve it. Standardizing the criminal legislation system and standardizing the criminal trial work in our country, avoiding the understanding difference in the trial practice, sentencing difference situation. The author thinks that the effectiveness of guiding cases should be fixed on judicial interpretation, and at the same time, the division of labor and distinction between the existing criminal judicial interpretation and the guidance system will be very beneficial to the implementation of the case guidance system. In addition, although the case guidance system has made significant progress, as a system that may have a profound impact on the application of criminal law norms, especially the system that is still in operation at the initial stage, it still needs to be based on the selection criteria of cases and the subject of case creation. Report and review of cases, public and annulment, public format and other aspects of clear, detailed regulation. The case guidance system should attach importance to the fundamental promotion of judicial autonomy and the open process of the judiciary, and push the judicial process towards the goal of social justice.
【学位授予单位】：兰州大学
【学位级别】：硕士
【学位授予年份】：2014
【分类号】：D924.3

【参考文献】