论庭审微博直播的程序性弊端与控制

发布时间：2018-05-13 07:47

本文选题：庭审微博直播 + 审判公开　；参考：《华东政法大学》2015年硕士论文

【摘要】：庭审微博直播是近几年法院利用新媒体进行审判公开实践的新产物。2013年薄熙来案利用微博直播庭审,因其案情重大敏感但公开程度和范围超乎预期,引起国内外的广泛关注,被誉为审判公开实践中的“里程碑”。庭审微博直播在一定程度上彰显了我国司法公开的实践成果,进一步保障了公众旁听权、知情权和监督权。但结合刑事诉讼审判公开原则、严格遵守法律程序原则、保障诉讼参与人依法享有诉讼权利原则等基本原则,并分析《刑事诉讼法》相关条文,可看出庭审微博直播存在删减直播内容、提前公开庭审笔录、剥夺当事人、证人查阅庭审笔录诉讼权利等程序性弊端。本文共分为三大部分,阐述庭审微博直播的积极诉讼价值和程序性弊端,分析出现程序性弊端的原因,并探讨如何将庭审微博直播合理有效地运用于审判公开实践,同时提出风险防范措施和构建科学的庭审微博直播制度的相关建议。第一部分庭审微博直播的概述:我国立法中对庭审微博直播的案件范围和主体的规定主要集中于法庭纪律和庭审直播的相关规定中,除经法院许可的新闻记者外,只有法院是庭审微博直播的适格主体。在司法实践中,微博直播庭审的探索始于2011年,到2014年底全国已形成四级法院微博体系,微博直播庭审得到普遍推广。学界对微博直播庭审的评价褒贬不一。有肯定评述认为,庭审微博直播直观、开放,加大审判公开力度,保障公众知情权和旁听权,并在直播过程中与公众互动交流,兼具普法警示意义。但有否定的观点认为,庭审笔录不应提前公开,微博直播庭审的文字数量与庭审时间不成比例,有些“特别内容”遭删减并未公布上网。与网络视频直播相比,庭审微博直播内容完整度和资源利用率均处劣势,应限制其在审判公开实践中的使用。从程序法角度看,庭审微博直播有其积极诉讼价值。司法与新媒体创造性结合,创设了审判公开新形式,加大庭审公开的力度,促进了司法公开透明,提升了司法公信力。同时,借助微博平台权威发布证人证言、控方相关物证,开创了审讯录音录像当庭播放的先河。以微博作为双向沟通平台也为公众监督庭审拓宽了途径。第二部分庭审微博直播的程序性弊端及其成因分析:在审判公开方面,庭审微博直播文字记录不详尽,内容不完整,在公布上网前进行三层审核,内容被删减;微博直播与庭审现场存在较大时间差。在诉讼参与人权利保障方面,微博直播庭审将庭审笔录公布上网前,未经当事人和证人阅读签字确认,有违《刑事诉讼法》第二百零一条的规定,剥夺了诉讼参与人查阅笔录、申请补正庭审笔录的权利。在程序法定方面,庭审笔录提前公布上网,审判长阅签笔录的程序无从实现,不符合程序法定原则。上述做法将导致庭审笔录在刑事诉讼中的作用难以发挥。在公众知情权保障方面,客观条件允许视听直播的前提下创设微博直播,使场外旁听庭审与现场旁听庭审的内容不一致,不利于保障公众旁听权的平等实现。究其原因,客观上是由于新媒体时代背景下的司法环境变化,舆论形成机制变化,法院反馈机制滞后,对涉法舆论管控制衡难,使法院舆论压力加大。主观上,司法人员审判公开理念的权力主导性过强,存在将审判公开当作特权的认识误区;面对公信力走低的局面存在不自信心理,为避免争议而无奈做出选择性公开的做法,对新媒体产生错误防范意识。此外,微博本身篇幅小,内容完整客观程度不如庭审网络视频直播,且微博直播庭审人力物力投入大,这些特点决定其不宜作为庭审直播的单一手段。第三部分庭审微博直播的程序性规制思路与举措:庭审微博直播的适用前提是与三大公开平台的有机衔接,实现庭审直播的高度公开,正面“迎对”舆论和媒体。适用庭审微博直播,应秉持限制使用、内容公开、权利保障的原则。案件直播以庭审网络视频直播为主,限制微博直播的使用,仅在客观条件限制或法律规定限制公开而无法实现网络视频直播的情况下,允许运用微博作为单一直播手段。直播过程力求透明、主导舆情,兼顾回应疏导负面舆论,注重公众旁听权、监督权的保障,注重当事人、证人确认和申请修改笔录权利的保障,兼顾当事人私权,把握审判公开边界。在构建庭审微博直播专门小组制度过程中,形成上下级微博信息联动会议合作机制,做好舆情监测研判和吸纳引导。建立规范的庭审微博直播执行标准,注重专门人员专项培训与普通法官常规培训相结合,将微博直播纳入司法公开考评指标,建立公众双向互评机制,提升社会沟通能力。同时出台舆情控制和意外应急预案,并赋予相关利益主体庭审微博直播异议权、上诉权和申诉权。
[Abstract]:The court trial micro-blog live broadcast is the new product of the court in recent years using the new media to carry out the trial public practice of the new product.2013 Bo Xilai case using the micro-blog live court, because of its sensitivity to the case, but the extent and scope of beyond expectation, caused widespread concern at home and abroad, is known as the "milestone" in the trial public practice. The trial of the trial of micro-blog live in the one. In a certain degree, it highlights the practical results of the public judicature in China, and further guarantees the public hearing right, the right to know and the right to supervise. But it can be seen that the basic principles such as the principle of public criminal procedure trial, strict compliance with the principles of legal procedure, and the principle of protecting the litigant rights according to law, and the analysis of the relevant provisions of the criminal procedure law, can be seen. There are three main parts of the trial of the trial of micro-blog live, including the deletion of the live content, the opening of the court record in advance, the deprivation of the procedural rights of the witness and the litigation right of the court trial. This article is divided into three parts, which are the active litigation value and the procedural malpractice of the court hearing micro-blog live, and the reasons for the procedural malpractice and the discussion of how to judge the trial of the micro-blog. The live broadcast is reasonably and effectively used in the trial public practice, at the same time, it puts forward the relevant suggestions for the risk prevention measures and the construction of the scientific trial of the micro-blog live broadcast system. The first part of the trial of the micro-blog live broadcast: the scope of the case and the main body of the case of the trial of the trial of the trial of micro-blog in our country should focus on the court discipline and the direct seeding of the court trial. In the provisions, except for the journalists licensed by the court, only the court is the main body of the micro-blog live trial of the court trial. In the judicial practice, the exploration of the micro-blog live court began in 2011, and by the end of 2014, the whole country has formed the four grade court micro-blog system, and the micro-blog live trial has been popularized. The academic circles have different comments on the evaluation of the direct seeding trial of micro-blog. It is affirmed that the trial of micro-blog direct seeding is intuitive, open, open, open to the public, to protect the public's right to know and to listen to the public, and to interact with the public in the process of direct seeding. But there is a negative view that the trial record should not be open in advance, and the number of words of the micro-blog live court is not proportional to the time of the trial. Some "special contents" have been deleted and did not be published online. Compared with online video broadcast, the content integrity and resource utilization of the trial micro-blog live broadcast are all at a disadvantage. They should limit their use in the trial public practice. From the perspective of procedural law, the micro-blog live court has its active litigation value. The creation of the creative combination of judiciary and new media has been created. The new form of the trial, increasing the openness of the trial, promoted the openness and transparency of the judiciary and promoted the credibility of the judiciary. At the same time, with the authority of the micro-blog platform to publish the witness testimony and the relevant evidence of the prosecution, it pioneered the trial of the hearing of the hearing and video recording in court. As a two-way communication platform, micro-blog has also widened the way for public supervision. The two part of the procedural abuse of the micro-blog live broadcast and its cause analysis: in the open trial, the micro-blog broadcast text records are not detailed and the content is incomplete, the three layers of audit before the publication of the Internet, the content has been cut down; there is a big time difference between the live broadcast of micro-blog and the court trial. In the case of the rights protection of the litigation participants, the trial of the micro-blog live is trial. The publication of the court proceedings before the Internet, without reading the signature of the parties and witnesses, has violated the provisions of the 201st article of the criminal procedure law, depriving the participants of the proceedings to check the record and applying for the right to correct the court proceedings. According to the principle of legal procedure, the above practice will lead to the difficult role of the court hearing in the criminal proceedings. In the protection of the public's right to know, the objective conditions permit the creation of the micro-blog live broadcast on the premise of audio-visual live broadcast, which makes the outside hearing court trial and the scene hearing trial content inconsistent, which is not conducive to the guarantee of the equal realization of the public's right to hear. The reason is because of the change of judicial environment in the background of the new media era, the change of the mechanism of public opinion, the lagging of the feedback mechanism of the court, the control and balance of the law public opinion management, the pressure of the public opinion of the court. In the face of the lack of confidence in the situation of low public credibility, in order to avoid the dispute, it is helpless to make a selective and open approach to the new media. In addition, the micro-blog itself is small, the content is not as complete and objective as the video broadcast of the court trial network, and the human resources and material resources of the micro-blog live court are large. These characteristics decide it is not suitable. As a single means of direct seeding of the court trial. The third part of the procedural rules and measures for the trial of micro-blog live, the applicable premise of the trial of the court hearing micro-blog live is the organic connection with the three public platforms, the realization of the high public view of the court hearing, the positive "welcome to" the public opinion and the media. The application of the court trial of the live broadcast of micro-blog should be restricted and the content should be open, The principle of right guarantee. The direct seeding of the case is mainly based on the weblive broadcast of the court trial. It restricts the use of the live broadcast of micro-blog. It is allowed to use micro-blog as a single direct seeding only when the objective conditions are limited or the legal restrictions are open and the network video is not broadcast. The direct seeding process is transparent, the public opinion is dominated, and the negative guidance is given to the negative guidance. Public opinion, pay attention to the right of public hearing, the right to supervision, pay attention to the protection of the parties, the witness confirmation and the application of the right to modify the written record, take account of the private rights of the parties and grasp the open boundary of the trial. In the process of building a special group system of the micro-blog live broadcast of the court trial, the cooperation mechanism of the joint meeting of the micro-blog information and interest is formed. To establish a standardized implementation standard of micro-blog live broadcast, pay attention to the special training of special personnel and regular training of ordinary judges, integrate the micro-blog live broadcast into the public evaluation index, establish the public two-way mutual evaluation mechanism and improve the social communication ability. At the same time, the public opinion control system and contingency plan are introduced, and the relevant stakeholders are given. Judge the right of objection to the micro-blog live broadcast, the right of appeal and the right to appeal.

【学位授予单位】：华东政法大学
【学位级别】：硕士
【学位授予年份】：2015
【分类号】：D926.2;D925.2

【参考文献】