当事人和解的公诉案件范围研究

发布时间：2018-05-15 22:00

本文选题：当事人和解 + 案件范围　；参考：《西南政法大学》2014年硕士论文

【摘要】：本文由引言和四章正文组成。2012年《刑事诉讼法》当事人和解的公诉案件诉讼程序为当事人初步规定了和解权利,该权利的充分实现,需要厘清这一和解特别程序的案件范围。以“当事人和解的公诉案件范围”为主题,本文沿着“立法、比较法、法律实施(司法、守法)、完善”的路径推进。创新点上：从司法的民间权利渊源、需要层次理论、“社会—国家”二元结构的转型趋势的角度挖掘“民间纠纷”丰富内涵及其体现的和解特别程序的包容性理念；先全面评议当事人和解的公诉案件范围的法律、司法解释、公安规定体系,后介绍代表性国家及地区的刑事和解案件范围并解读其由窄至宽的规律、权利主导的理念对中国和解特别程序建设的启示,再结合调研纠正特别程序的和解、传统和解系“竞合关系”的误认,从立法、比较法、法律实施(司法、守法)三方面寻找该特别程序的和解案件范围及其扩大的方向；以和解案件判决书中的问题为例,指出为推动和解特别程序的规范、透明适用,须将案件的准入规则标准化,确认当事人对该程序的启动权,保障加害人的“法定从宽”权利,而这些措施可吸收潜在的和解案件。引言引出刑事诉讼法以权利为导向的发展趋势,介绍理论界和实务界关于和解特别程序适用案件范围的代表观点,拉开以权利为线索界定当事人和解的公诉案件范围、以案件范围阐释该特别程序中当事人和解权利的序幕,交代“立法、比较法、法律实施(司法、守法)、完善”的推进路径,以三个“试图”概括创新点与方法。第一章在立法上,全面评议刑事诉讼法、司法解释、公安部规定这三套特别程序的和解的合法化外衣,指出《刑事诉讼法》特别程序在呈现出包容性之时也有粗略之憾,其中司法解释符合《刑事诉讼法》精神,《公安部规定》与《刑事诉讼法》兼容性较差。“民间纠纷”、量刑幅度类别、例外条款的解释和《公安部规定》排除式规定的商榷等问题的解决关系到和解特别程序的合法适用。“民间纠纷”内涵十分丰富,宜在实施中不断挖掘,各方不应急于制定负面清单。第二章在比较法上,介绍代表性国家及地区的刑事和解,概括出案件范围由窄至宽的规律：从适用轻罪开始,逐渐容纳重罪；由未成年人案件为主,向成年人案件开放；在纵向的不同诉讼阶段上可和解的案件范围也不同。意大利的一个经验是加强当事人权利而使各特别程序在适用范围极广的同时有效提升诉讼效率,这提醒我们,在和解特别程序中赋予当事人启动权是扩大特别程序的和解案件范围、提高刑事和解效率的一个思路。和解特别程序的本土合理性来源广泛,应注意科学化、社会化建构。和解特别程序与刑事被害人国家救助制度在理论基础、适用范围上差异很大,二者可互补。第三章作实证分析。在法律实施中法官对适用和解特别程序的“不敢”态度有着刑事法律规范功能定位与刑庭职业习惯,新闻猎奇本能及其对刑庭的舆论压力,行政考评指标中的职业风险等现实原因,对调研案例的考察可预见大量的、尚未被司法人员认证的案件都是特别程序的和解案件的潜在范围。法官误认特别程序的和解、传统和解系“竞合关系”及其判决书体现,特别程序的和解案件认证规则的混乱,连同第一章对该特别程序的和解案件范围的法律规范评议,共同解释了法官对适用该程序的“不知”态度。特别程序的和解案件范围除受法律规范直接的、基础性的影响外,也受到司法、守法相关因素间接而重要的影响,以权力为主导则该程序难以标准化运行,以权利为主导则该程序的适用规则清晰。欲建立更加成熟开放的当事人和解的公诉案件的规则框架,须确认当事人对和解特别程序的启动权并保障加害人适用该程序时的“法定从宽”权利。专门机关应统一以和解协议书作为证据要件,对和解“自愿性、合法性”只享有形式审查权,除非存在明显的相反证据。第四章在特别程序的和解案件范围的完善上落脚：对包含涉嫌罪名,可能的刑罚幅度,“犯罪嫌疑人、被告人在五年以内曾经故意犯罪”例外条款,未成年人案件与成年人案件、轻罪与严重犯罪的区分等标准的影响案件范围的法律规范体系进行优化,直接扩大案件范围；对和解特别程序的启动方式、法律后果、和解协议的及时履行、专门机关的和解工作量这几个法律实施中动态、间接地影响案件范围的因素的对策分别为：依当事人权利而和解、保障加害人的“法定从宽”权利、激励加害人与救济被害人、职权勿过度介入和解。
[Abstract]:This article is composed of the introduction and four chapters of the main body of the four chapter of the criminal procedure law of "the Criminal Procedure Law >" the litigant lawsuit procedure for the parties to conciliate the litigant. The right to conciliate is preliminarily stipulated by the parties. The full realization of the right needs to clarify the scope of the case of this special procedure of reconciliation. The theme "the scope of the public prosecution case of the parties to the parties" is the theme, this article follows the "legislation, Comparative law, legal implementation (judicature, law-abiding), improvement of the path. Innovation: from the origin of the civil rights of the judiciary, the need for the theory of hierarchy, the transformation trend of the "social state" two yuan structure, to excavate the rich connotation of the "civil dispute" and the inclusive concept of its embodiment and the solution of the special procedure; The legal, judicial interpretation, public security system and the scope of the criminal reconciliation cases in the representative countries and regions, and then interpret the scope of the criminal reconciliation cases in the representative countries and regions, and interpret its Enlightenment from the narrow to wide law, the concept of right leading to the construction of the special procedure for China's reconciliation, and the reconciliation of the special procedure of investigation and correction, the traditional reconciliation department. The misidentification of the Department, from three aspects of legislation, comparative law, law enforcement (judicature and law-abiding), seeks the scope of the settlement of the special procedure and the direction of its expansion. Taking the problems in the case of the case of reconciliation cases as an example, it points out that it is transparent and applicable to promote the standard of the special procedure of reconciliation, and must standardize the admittance rules of the case, and confirm the parties to this process. The right to initiate the order guarantees the legal leniency of the offender, and these measures can absorb potential conciliation cases.
The introduction leads to the development trend of the right oriented criminal procedure law. It introduces the views of the theoretical and practical circles on the application of the case scope of the special procedure of the reconciliation, and defines the scope of the public prosecution case with the right as the clue, and explains the prelude to the rights of the parties in the special procedure by the scope of the case, and explains the "legislation". The promotion path of comparative law, law enforcement (justice, law-abiding) and perfection is summarized by three "attempts" to summarize innovations and methods.
In the first chapter, the legislation, the comprehensive review of the criminal procedure law, the judicial interpretation, the Ministry of Public Security stipulates the legalization of the three special procedures, and points out that the special procedure of the criminal procedure law also has a rough regret when it is inclusive, of which the judicial interpretation conforms to the spirit of the criminal procedure law, the provisions of the Ministry of public security and the criminal procedure law. The resolution of "civil disputes", the category of sentencing, the explanation of the exception clause and the discussion of the provisions of the Ministry of public security and the provisions of the exclusionary rule of the Ministry of public security are related to the legal application of the special procedures of reconciliation. The connotation of "civil disputes" is very rich, and should be constantly excavated in the implementation, and the parties should not be anxious to formulate a negative list.
The second chapter, in the comparative law, introduces the criminal reconciliation in the representative countries and regions, and summarizes the law of the case range from narrow to wide: from the beginning of the application of the misdemeanor, it is gradually accommodated by the serious crimes; the minor cases are mainly open to the adult cases; the range of cases which can be reconciled in the different stages of the longitudinal litigation is also different. One of Italy The experience is to strengthen the rights of the parties and to effectively improve the efficiency of the proceedings when the application of the special procedures is very wide, which reminds us that the right to initiate the parties in the special procedure of reconciliation is a thought way to expand the scope of the settlement of the special procedures and to improve the efficiency of the criminal reconciliation. In general, we should pay attention to scientific and socialized construction. The special procedure of reconciliation and the system of state assistance for criminal victims have a great difference in the theoretical basis and the scope of application. The two can complement each other.
The third chapter makes an empirical analysis. In the implementation of the law, the judge's "dared" attitude to the application of the special procedure of reconciliation has the functional orientation of criminal law and the professional habit of the criminal court, the instinct of the news hunting, the pressure on the public opinion of the court and the occupational risk in the administrative evaluation index, which can be foreseen in a large number of investigation cases, Cases that have not been authenticated by the judiciary are the potential scope of a special procedure of reconciliation. The judge misunderstands the reconciliation of the special procedures, the "coopetition relationship" and its verdict of the traditional reconciliation department, the confusion of the special procedures for the reconciliation of the cases of reconciliation cases, and the legal review of the scope of the conciliation cases in the first chapter of the special procedure, It is a common interpretation of the "unknowing" attitude of the judge to the application of the procedure. The scope of the settlement of the special procedure, except for the direct and basic influence of the legal norms, is also influenced by the indirect and important factors related to the judicial and law-abiding factors. The procedure is difficult to standardize the procedure with the power as the dominant factor, and the application of the procedure is dominated by rights. In order to establish a more mature and open legal framework for public prosecution cases, it is necessary to confirm the party's right to start the special procedure of reconciliation and to protect the "statutory leniency" of the application of the procedure. The specialized agency should unify the settlement agreement as the evidence element and enjoy the "voluntary, legality" of reconciliation only. There is a right to formal review unless there is a clear opposite evidence.
The fourth chapter falls on the perfection of the scope of the case of the special procedure: the legal norms affecting the scope of the case, including the extent of the alleged offences, the possible penalty range, the exception clause of the criminal suspect, the accused in five years, the minor cases and the adult cases, the distinction between the misdemeanor and the serious crime The system is optimized to directly expand the scope of the case; the ways to start the special procedures of the conciliation, the legal consequences, the timely implementation of the settlement agreement and the reconciliation of the special organs are dynamic, and the countermeasures that indirectly affect the scope of the case are: to reconcile the rights of the parties and to guarantee the "legal" of the injuring person. "Lenient" rights, encourage the offender and relief victims, do not intervene too much in reconciliation.

【学位授予单位】：西南政法大学
【学位级别】：硕士
【学位授予年份】：2014
【分类号】：D925.2

【参考文献】