捕后羁押必要性审查之证明规则研究——以依申请启动下的羁押必要性审查为视角

发布时间：2018-06-17 18:56

本文选题：捕后羁押 + 羁押必要性　；参考：《中国刑事法杂志》2017年05期

【摘要】：对于捕后羁押必要性审查之证明规则的梳理,有助于明确羁押审查的独立性,使该制度由形式化审查走向实质化审查。实践中,羁押必要性审查运行率及适用率低下的主要原因是审查人员对于审查内容及审查标准难以把握,造成"宁枉勿纵"的局面。证明规则的确立能使审查内容及审查标准清晰明朗化。羁押必要性审查应确立证明规则,其证明对象是犯罪嫌疑人、被告人被羁押的必要性及是否有"变化"因素,启动该制度的证明责任应由辩方承担,在辩方提供有利证据的情况下,证明责任转移给控方。其证明标准应当分两步走:侦查阶段采用"优势证据"的标准;审查起诉和审判阶段采用"清楚有说服力"的标准。羁押必要性审查之证明方法适用自由证明。捕后羁押必要性审查之证明规则的确立应辅之以灵活开放的诉讼程序,促进多方参与,必要时应适用听证程序进行审查。
[Abstract]:Combing the rules of proof of the necessity review of detention after arrest is helpful to clarify the independence of detention review and to make the system from formal review to substantive review. In practice, the main reason for the low operating rate and application rate of the review of the necessity of custody is that the examiner is difficult to grasp the contents and standards of the examination, which results in the situation of "unjustified rather than vertical". The establishment of the rules of proof can make the contents and standards of the review clear and clear. The examination of the necessity of custody should establish the rules of proof, the object of proof is the criminal suspect, the necessity of the accused being detained and whether there are "changing" factors, the burden of proof to initiate the system should be borne by the defense. The burden of proof is transferred to the prosecution in the case of favourable evidence provided by the defence. The standard of proof should be divided into two steps: the standard of "superior evidence" should be adopted in the investigation stage, and the standard of "clear and persuasive" should be adopted in the stage of examination, prosecution and trial. The method of proof of necessity examination of custody shall apply to the proof of liberty. The establishment of the rules of proof of the necessity examination of detention after arrest should be supplemented by flexible and open procedure to promote multi-party participation and, if necessary, should be examined by hearing procedure.
【作者单位】：吉林大学法学院;
【基金】：国家“2011计划”司法文明协同创新中心研究成果
【分类号】：D925.2

【相似文献】