论公安非羁押性强制措施制度的构建

发布时间：2018-05-17 18:09

本文选题：非羁押诉讼 + 人权　；参考：《暨南大学》2014年硕士论文

【摘要】：在2013年1月1日正式颁布实施的新《刑事诉讼法》中,我国首次将“保障人权”写入法条,“惩罚犯罪与保障人权并重”成为新法的精神主旨。在此背景下,非羁押诉讼成为我国刑事诉讼改革的必然趋势。目前,“刑事和解制度”、“未成年人特别程序”已对以往“构罪即拘”、“构罪即捕”的审前羁押诉讼制度有了很大突破。非羁押性强制措施,在未来公安工作中必然将广泛使用。但是,由于公安传统侦查模式固化、非羁押性强制措施本身适用范围模糊、被害人不理解、不认同非羁押诉讼等因素影响,新法在实际执行过程中遭遇到不少阻碍。传统上,公安机关为方便侦查、获取口供、保障刑事诉讼顺利进行,往往会更侧重审前羁押,而非羁押性强制措施,如取保候审、监视居住,更多的是在羁押期限届满或不宜收押等情况下才会使用。因此,公安机关在非羁押性强制措施的运用上仍存在“以押代侦”的情况。此外,新法本身适用范围模糊也造成公安人员在操作上无所适从的困境。最后,在高羁押率情况下,公安部门也会受到来自外界的种种压力,使办案民警在执行新法时出现畏难情绪。总之,新《刑事诉讼法》仍然存在种种理论和实践问题亟待解决。本文从公安工作实践经验出发,分析新《刑事诉讼法》在公安机关办案过程中的现状及其难点,为相关研究提供了第一手资料。此外,本文通过比较方法,借鉴了欧美国家非羁押诉讼制度的成功经验,并从现行非羁押性强制措施适用范围和非羁押诉讼程序两方面,提出完善我国非羁押性强制措施立法、重构非羁押性强制措施使用权、科学推进非羁押诉讼公安执法、建立配套保障机制的初步设想。对创新非羁押诉讼公安工作机制,顺应刑事和解之风,衔接新旧诉讼机制,改善和平衡我国的司法羁押制度,有一定的理论和现实意义。
[Abstract]:In the new Criminal procedure Law, which was promulgated and implemented on January 1, 2013, "protecting human rights" is written into the law for the first time in China, and "punishing crime and protecting human rights" becomes the spirit of the new law. Under this background, the non-custodial lawsuit becomes the inevitable trend of our country's criminal procedure reform. At present, "Criminal reconciliation system" and "Special procedure for minors" have made a great breakthrough in the pretrial detention litigation system of "constitution of crime is arrest" and "constitution of crime is arrest". Non-custodial coercive measures will inevitably be widely used in the future public security work. However, due to the solidification of the traditional investigation mode of public security, the ambiguity of the scope of application of the non-custodial coercive measures, the lack of understanding of the victim, the lack of recognition of the non-custodial litigation and other factors, the new law has encountered many obstacles in the actual implementation process. Traditionally, in order to facilitate investigation, obtain confessions and ensure the smooth conduct of criminal proceedings, public security organs tend to place more emphasis on pretrial detention than on custodial coercive measures, such as bail pending trial, surveillance of residence, It is more likely to be used only when the term of detention expires or it is not suitable to be taken into custody. Therefore, there still exists the situation of "remand investigation" in the use of non-custodial coercive measures by public security organs. In addition, the ambiguity of the scope of application of the new law also makes the public security personnel at a loss in operation. Finally, under the situation of high detention rate, the public security department will also be subjected to various kinds of pressure from outside, which makes the police in handling cases appear the fear of difficulties in the implementation of the new law. In short, the new Criminal procedure Law still has a variety of theoretical and practical problems to be solved. Based on the practical experience of the public security work, this paper analyzes the present situation and difficulties of the new Criminal procedure Law in the process of handling cases by the public security organs, and provides first-hand information for the relevant research. In addition, through the comparative method, this paper draws lessons from the successful experience of the non-custodial litigation system in Europe and the United States, and proposes to perfect the legislation of non-custodial coercive measures in our country from two aspects: the applicable scope of the current non-custodial coercive measures and the non-custodial procedural procedure. Reconstructing the right to use non-custodial coercive measures, scientifically promoting the enforcement of law by public security in non-custodial litigation, and establishing a supporting safeguard mechanism. It is of theoretical and practical significance to innovate the public security work mechanism of non-custodial litigation, to conform to the trend of criminal reconciliation, to link up with the old and new litigation mechanisms, and to improve and balance the judicial custody system in our country.
【学位授予单位】：暨南大学
【学位级别】：硕士
【学位授予年份】：2014
【分类号】：D925.2

【共引文献】