我国公诉权制约机制研究

发布时间：2018-05-07 10:47

本文选题：公诉权制约 + 提起公诉　；参考：《华中师范大学》2014年硕士论文

【摘要】：公诉权是法定的公诉机关代表国家向法院提起诉讼,要求法院通过审判追究被告人刑事责任的国家权力。公诉机关依法行使公诉权,就能实现刑事诉讼法惩罚犯罪,保障人权的立法目的,公诉权一旦被滥用,则可能导致无罪之人受到刑事追究。因此,为了监督公诉机关依法行使公诉权,防止公诉权滥用,保障人权,现代法治国家普遍建立了较为完备的公诉权制约机制,对公诉的启动、变更、不起诉的条件和程序,利害关系人的诉讼权利及其保障等作了明确规定。由于传统刑事诉讼价值理念的差异,英美法系国家强调程序的正当性和人权保障,注重对公诉机关提起公诉的制约,对不起诉的制约相对较少。大陆法系国家因强调犯罪控制和追求实体真实,则既强调对提起公诉的制约,也重视对不起诉的制约。我国刑事诉讼法虽然赋予公安机关、人民法院、被害人、被不起诉人、制约公诉权的权力或诉讼权利,但是,立法仍然有很多不完善的地方。本论文试图运用权力制约理论、诉讼公正理论、诉讼效率理论阐释公诉权制约的正当性,借鉴两大法系主要国家公诉权制约的立法经验,为我国公诉权制约机制的完善提供立法建议。本论文分四个部分：第一部分,阐释公诉权的含义、属性及具体内容,公诉权制约的理论依据以及必要性。第二部分,考察英国、美国、德国、日本的公诉权制约机制。介绍上述四国对公诉机关提起公诉、不起诉、变更公诉制约的立法概况,并指出对我国的借鉴意义。第三部分,介绍我国公诉权制约的立法现状以及对公诉权制约的实践探索,分析我国公诉权制约机制存在的主要问题。第四部分,确定完善我国公诉权制约机制应当坚持的基本原则,在此基础上,提出完善我国公诉权制约机制的立法建议。具体措施：设立预审制度制约提起公诉,建立不起诉听证制度、取消公诉转自诉制度制约不起诉,明确变更公诉的提出期限、赋予人民法院对变更公诉的司法审查权、规定重新起诉的条件。
[Abstract]:The right of public prosecution is the state power that the legal public prosecution organ brings the lawsuit to the court on behalf of the state, asking the court to investigate the defendant's criminal responsibility through trial. If the public prosecution organ exercises the right of public prosecution according to law, it can realize the legislative purpose of punishing the crime and protecting human rights in the criminal procedure law. Once the right of public prosecution is abused, it may lead to the criminal investigation of the innocent person. Therefore, in order to supervise the public prosecution organs to exercise the right of public prosecution according to law, to prevent the abuse of the right of prosecution and to protect human rights, the modern country ruled by law has generally established a relatively complete system of restricting the right of public prosecution, the conditions and procedures for the initiation, change, and non-prosecution of public prosecution. The litigant rights of interested parties and their protection are clearly stipulated. Because of the difference of the traditional criminal procedure values, the common law countries emphasize the legitimacy of the procedure and the protection of human rights, pay attention to the restriction of the prosecution of the public prosecution organ, and the restriction to the non-prosecution is relatively small. Because of the emphasis on crime control and the pursuit of entity truth, civil law countries not only emphasize the restriction of prosecution, but also attach importance to the restriction of non-prosecution. Although China's criminal procedure law gives public security organs, people's courts, victims, persons who are not prosecuted, the power to restrict the right of prosecution or litigation rights, but the legislation is still a lot of imperfections. This paper tries to use the theory of power restriction, the theory of litigation justice and the theory of litigation efficiency to explain the legitimacy of the restriction of the right of prosecution, and draw lessons from the legislative experience of the restriction of the right of public prosecution in the main countries of the two legal systems. To provide legislative advice for the improvement of the restriction mechanism of the right of public prosecution in China. This thesis is divided into four parts: The first part explains the meaning, attribute and concrete content of the right of public prosecution, the theoretical basis and necessity of the restriction of the right of prosecution. The second part, examines the British, the United States, Germany, Japan's public prosecution right restriction mechanism. This paper introduces the legislative survey of the above four countries on the prosecution of the public prosecution organ, does not prosecute, and changes the restriction of public prosecution, and points out the reference significance to our country. The third part introduces the current legislative situation of the restriction of the right of public prosecution and the practical exploration of the restriction of the right of public prosecution, and analyzes the main problems existing in the restriction mechanism of the right of public prosecution in our country. In the fourth part, the author determines the basic principles that should be adhered to in perfecting the restriction mechanism of the right of public prosecution in our country, and puts forward some legislative suggestions on how to perfect the restriction mechanism of the right of public prosecution in our country. The specific measures are: establishing the system of preliminary examination to restrict the prosecution, establishing the system of non-prosecution hearing, canceling the restriction of the system of public prosecution to private prosecution, clearly changing the time limit for the filing of public prosecution, giving the people's court the right to judicial review of the change of public prosecution, Set the conditions for a new prosecution.
【学位授予单位】：华中师范大学
【学位级别】：硕士
【学位授予年份】：2014
【分类号】：D925.2

【参考文献】