审查起诉阶段程序分流研究

发布时间：2018-06-03 10:26

  本文选题：程序分流 + 酌定不起诉　； 参考：《南京大学》2017年硕士论文

【摘要】：党的十八届四中全会通过《中共中央关于全面推进依法治国若干重大问题的决定》(以下简称《决定》),提出推进以审判为中心的诉讼制度改革。"以审判为中心的诉讼制度改革"目的在于将刑事诉讼程序的重心由侦查环节转变为审判环节,将侦查与起诉作为围绕审判展开的支撑型工作,突出庭审的中心地位,解决"庭审虚化"问题,促进庭审实质化和规范化。鉴于司法资源的有限性,为促进庭审的实质化和规范化,突出审判的中心地位,必须根据案件的情况和特点建立有效的刑事程序分流机制。恰如陈晓东所言:"如果不顾刑事案件的复杂多样而盲目地对每一案件都投入等量的司法资源,只会造成两种后果:一是使那些简单的案件毫无必要地经历了复杂的诉讼程序,造成诉讼资源的浪费;二是那些复杂的案件由于投入的司法资源相对不足而难以得到公平、正义的处理。" ①因此,在司法资源较为匮乏的前提之下,根据案件的具体情况分配相应的司法资源,而不是让每一个案件都机械地经历侦查、起诉以及审判三个阶段,才是明智的选择。也就是说,为实现"以审判为中心"的诉讼制度改革,必须对刑事案件在审前进行科学的分流。从我国现状来看,我国刑事诉讼奉行起诉法定主义原则,检察机关自由裁量权空间狭小,弱化了公诉阶段的程序分流功能。酌定不起诉和附条件不起诉制度在我国《刑事诉讼法》中都有明确规定,虽然这两项制度是可以在审查起诉阶段起到分流效果的制度,但是它们在司法实践中存在诸多缺陷,未能充分发挥分流的功能。审查起诉阶段是案件进入审判前的最后一道关卡,法院审判案件的数量会因为这一阶段的不起诉决定而实质性地减少。因此,应当弥补现有制度的缺陷,以不起诉的形式对案件进行审前分流,实现庭审实质化,实现"以审判为中心"的改革目标。本文分四部分对审查起诉阶段程序分流机制进行探讨。第一部分介绍了我国现行刑事诉讼法中规定的在审查起诉阶段具有分流功能的酌定不起诉制度与附条件不起诉制度,重点阐述了两项制度实践情况及适用率低等问题,并分析了包括立法、程序繁琐、考核制度的影响等多方面原因;第二部分阐述了赋予检察机关不起诉裁量权、以不起诉的形式进行审前程序分流的理论基础、实践依据及价值分析,主要从非刑罚化思想、刑罚个别化、宽严相济原则、犯罪形势变化、诉讼效率、公共利益、人权保障等方面进行论证;第三部分主要介绍了其他国家审查起诉中程序分流比较成熟的制度,包括美国的审前分流项目、德国的微罪不起诉、起诉保留制度以及日本的起诉犹豫制度,重点分析了它们的适用对象、案件范围、考量因素、制约机制等;第四部分在前文分析的基础之上,从扩大审查起诉阶段分流的适用和完善监督制约机制两大方面提出完善我国现有制度的构想。
[Abstract]:The fourth Plenary session of the 18th CPC Central Committee adopted the "decision of the CPC Central Committee on comprehensively promoting the ruling of the country according to Law" (hereinafter referred to as "the decision"), proposing to promote the reform of the litigation system centered on trial. " The aim of the reform of the litigation system centered on trial is to change the focus of criminal procedure from investigation to trial, to take investigation and prosecution as the supporting work around the trial, and to highlight the central position of the trial. To solve the problem of "fictitious trial" and to promote the materialization and standardization of trial. In view of the limitation of judicial resources, in order to promote the materialization and standardization of the trial and highlight the central position of the trial, it is necessary to establish an effective diversion mechanism of criminal procedure according to the circumstances and characteristics of the case. As Chen Xiaodong put it: "if we blindly invest the same amount of judicial resources in each case regardless of the complexity and diversity of criminal cases, there will only be two consequences: one is to make those simple cases go through complex proceedings needlessly." Cause the waste of litigation resources; second, those complicated cases are difficult to be dealt with fairly and justly because of the relatively insufficient judicial resources invested. "1 therefore, under the premise that judicial resources are relatively scarce, It is a wise choice to allocate the corresponding judicial resources according to the specific situation of the case rather than let each case go through three stages of investigation prosecution and trial mechanically. In other words, in order to realize the reform of trial-centered litigation system, criminal cases must be divided scientifically before trial. From the point of view of the present situation of our country, the criminal procedure in our country pursues the principle of prosecution legalism, and the discretion of the procuratorial organ is narrow, which weakens the function of procedural diversion in the stage of public prosecution. The system of discretionary non-prosecution and conditional non-prosecution is clearly stipulated in the Criminal procedure Law of our country. Although these two systems are the systems that can have the effect of diverting in the stage of examining and prosecuting, they have many defects in judicial practice. Fail to give full play to the function of shunt. The review of the prosecution stage is the last hurdle before the case enters trial, and the number of court cases will be substantially reduced because of the decision of non-prosecution in this stage. Therefore, we should make up for the defects of the existing system, divide the case before trial in the form of non-prosecution, realize the materialization of the trial, and realize the reform goal of "taking trial as the center". This article divides into four parts to examine the prosecution stage procedure diversion mechanism carries on the discussion. The first part introduces the discretionary non-prosecution system and the conditional non-prosecution system, which are provided in the current Criminal procedure Law of our country, which has the function of shunting in the stage of reviewing and prosecuting, with emphasis on the practice of the two systems and the low application rate. The second part expounds the theoretical basis of giving procuratorial organs the discretion of non-prosecution and diverting the pretrial procedure in the form of non-prosecution. Practice basis and value analysis, mainly from the non-punishment thought, penalty individualization, leniency and strict punishment principle, crime situation change, litigation efficiency, public interest, human rights protection and so on. The third part mainly introduces the system of procedure diversion in other countries, including the pretrial diversion project in the United States, the non-prosecution of micro-crime in Germany, the system of prosecution reservation and the hesitant system of prosecution in Japan. It focuses on their applicable object, case scope, consideration factors, restriction mechanism and so on. The fourth part is based on the previous analysis. This paper puts forward the idea of perfecting the existing system of our country from two aspects: enlarging the application of the diversion in the stage of examining and prosecuting and perfecting the supervision and restriction mechanism.
【学位授予单位】：南京大学
【学位级别】：硕士
【学位授予年份】：2017
【分类号】：D925.2
，

本文编号：1972450