刑事预审制度研究

发布时间：2018-03-09 17:17

本文选题：预审　切入点：司法审查　出处：《浙江工商大学》2008年硕士论文　论文类型：学位论文

【摘要】： 预审的概念有广义和狭义之分。广义的预审是指在刑事诉讼中,拥有预审权利的主体依法参与刑事案件的侦查活动,并对公诉方准备起诉的案件进行审查,以确定案件是否符合起诉的条件,从而决定应否起诉,将案件交付审判的程序。狭义的预审指在刑事诉讼中,拥有司法审查权的法官或其他预审官员,依据公诉机关起诉的事实和证据审查该起诉请求,就起诉是否达到启动审判程序的法定条件,包括对审前追诉行为合法性的审查一并作出程序性制裁的这样一个独立的诉讼阶段。该程序对于推动刑事诉讼活动的顺利进行、保障诉讼公正、提高诉讼效率具有重要意义。各主要法治国家刑事诉讼法均规定了较为完善的预审程序。本文首先对预审制度的概念做了比较清晰和全面地界定,并与国内相关的刑事诉讼制度的概念进行了辨析。通过从理论上对预审制度本身分别从静态的理性价值分析到动态的运行机制归纳进行了比较深入地研究,本文论证了预审制度的实质是程序性司法审查制度,是一个相对独立的审前诉讼阶段,具有特殊的程序价值与功能,其结果是引起程序性法律关系的产生、变更和消亡。预审程序具有起诉审查功能,这也是预审程序最基本的功能。其次是人权保障功能,预审主体能及时发现审前程序中的违法侵犯人权的行为并进行保护。第三,预审程序能极大的提高诉讼效率。预审通过审查起诉将一些证据不够充分的或者不通过正式审判就可以结案的案件,阻却在正式庭审之外,实际减少了进入正式审判阶段案件的数量。在预审程序中的证据开示制度,也提高了诉讼效率。最后,预审还具有为审判作准备的功能。预审的运作模式,各个国家有不同的制度规定。文章主要采取了比较分析的方法,对预审程序的适用范围、预审程序的启动、预审程序的模式与方式、预审程序的审查内容等方面进行了论述。从而发现大陆法系和英美法系的预审程序分别有各自的特点。英美法系预审的启动具有被动性,运作过程具有对抗性,审查内容的程序性。而大陆法系国家预审的职权主义特征就较为明显。我国学者在比较研究国外预审制度时,对预审制度概念的界定比较模糊,而且缺乏系统地对制度以及制度实施的研究。我国刑事诉讼法中并未建立预审程序,这并非立法上是否采用“预审程序”措词的问题,而是在诉讼结构上预审程序在现行法中呈现为“结构性缺失”的状态。我国刑事诉讼中建立预审程序首先要对检察权的法律性质进行重新的定位,然后是刑事诉讼构造的重塑。在具体设计上,我国应设立预审法官制度,应当将预审法官和审判法官进行隔离。对预审范围进行严格限定,并采用书面审和言辞审相结合的方式。审查的内容实行以程序性审查为主,实体性审查为辅的方式,并在预审程序中实行证据开示制度。
[Abstract]:The concept of prehearing is divided into broad sense and narrow sense. In criminal proceedings, the subject with prehearing right participates in the investigation of criminal case according to law, and reviews the case that the public prosecution intends to prosecute. In order to determine whether the case meets the conditions for prosecution and thus decide whether the case should be prosecuted and the procedure for referring the case to trial... in a narrow sense, pre-trial means a judge or other pre-trial officer with judicial review power in criminal proceedings, If the prosecution request is examined on the basis of the facts and evidence of the prosecution, whether the prosecution meets the statutory conditions for the commencement of the trial proceedings, Including the examination of the legality of pretrial prosecution, together with the imposition of procedural sanctions at such an independent stage of the proceedings. This procedure is conducive to the smooth conduct of criminal proceedings and guarantees the fairness of the proceedings, It is of great significance to improve the efficiency of litigation. The criminal procedure law of the major rule of law countries has stipulated a relatively perfect preliminary procedure. Firstly, the concept of the preliminary hearing system is clearly and comprehensively defined in this paper. And related to the domestic concept of criminal procedure system is analyzed. Based on the theoretical analysis of the pre-hearing system itself from the static rational value analysis to the dynamic operating mechanism induction, this paper demonstrates that the essence of the pre-hearing system is the procedural judicial review system. It is a relatively independent stage of pretrial litigation, which has special procedural value and function. The result is the emergence, alteration and extinction of procedural legal relations. This is also the most basic function of the pretrial procedure. Secondly, it is the function of human rights protection. The pre-trial subject can timely discover and protect the illegal violations of human rights in the pretrial proceedings. Third, Pre-trial proceedings can greatly improve the efficiency of proceedings. By examining and prosecuting cases that are not sufficiently substantiated or can be concluded without a formal trial, pre-trial proceedings are excluded from formal trials. In fact, the number of cases entering the formal trial stage has been reduced. The system of discovery of evidence in the pre-trial proceedings has also improved the efficiency of the proceedings. Finally, the pre-hearing also has the function of preparing for the trial. There are different systems in each country. This article mainly adopts a comparative analysis method, the scope of application, the initiation of preliminary proceedings, the mode and mode of preliminary proceedings, This paper discusses the contents of the examination of the preliminary hearing procedure, and finds out that the preliminary hearing procedure of the civil law system and the common law system have their own characteristics, the initiation of the preliminary hearing in the common law system is passive, and the operation process is antagonistic. The procedural aspects of the examination. The features of prehearing in civil law countries are obvious. In the comparative study of the foreign preliminary hearing system, the definition of the preliminary hearing system is vague, and there is a lack of systematic research on the system and its implementation. The preliminary hearing procedure has not been established in the criminal procedure law of our country. This is not a question of the legislative use of the term "pre-trial proceedings", But in the structure of the proceedings, the pretrial procedure presents a state of "structural deficiency" in the current law. To establish the pretrial procedure in the criminal procedure of our country, first of all, the legal nature of the procuratorial power should be reoriented. Then there is the reconstruction of the structure of criminal proceedings. In terms of specific design, our country should set up a system of pre-trial judges, and should segregate the pre-trial judges from the trial judges, and strictly limit the scope of the pre-trial proceedings. It adopts the combination of written and verbal review. The content of the examination is mainly procedural review, the substantive examination is supplementary, and the system of discovery of evidence is carried out in the preliminary hearing procedure.
【学位授予单位】：浙江工商大学
【学位级别】：硕士
【学位授予年份】：2008
【分类号】：D925.2

【相似文献】