审前违法羁押救济机制研究

发布时间：2018-06-24 06:34

本文选题：违法羁押 + 救济权　；参考：《西南政法大学》2014年硕士论文

【摘要】：审前羁押作为刑事诉讼中追诉犯罪的有效手段，有其适用的正当性和必要性，但若羁押权力操作不当，极易侵犯被羁押者的合法权利。在我国审前羁押制度中，错误羁押、任意羁押、超期羁押现象一直长期存在，而刑事诉讼中却缺乏对此类违法羁押的有效救济机制，虽然2012年《刑事诉讼法》对包括审前羁押制度在内的刑事强制措施进行了较大幅度的修改和完善，但修改后的《刑事诉讼法》并未触及到审前羁押制度中的根本性缺陷，依旧很难改变当前违法羁押中救济机制整体缺失的状况。因此，在对我国现行审前违法羁押救济机制进行深刻反思的基础上，进一步研究和探索切实可行的完善方案，已成为现阶段审前违法羁押救济机制改革中亟待解决的问题。本文除引言和结语外，正文分为三个部分，约三万三千余字。第一部分论述了被羁押者救济权利的基本内容。被羁押者救济权是指受到审前羁押的犯罪嫌疑人、被告人就羁押的合法性、必要性和比例性等问题依法向有关机关提出申请，要求有关机关对羁押的合法性、必要性和比例性等问题进行公正裁决，以保障其人身自由免受非法侵害的权利。赋予被羁押者救济权是基于无罪推定原则、人权保障理念和正当程序的要求。被羁押者救济权具体包括申请取保候审权、申请羁押复查权、申请释放权、获得国家赔偿权等等。第二部分分析了我国审前违法羁押救济机制存在的问题以及问题的形成原因。首先，被羁押者可救济的权利十分有限；其次，对于审前违法羁押以行政性的救济方式为主，并不存在严格意义上的司法救济机制；最后，救济程序的规定具有模糊性，缺乏可操作性，救济效果不甚理想。造成上述问题的原因在于制度因素、立法因素、案件因素三个方面：我国现行的刑事诉讼制度中，没有形成“审判中心主义”的诉讼模式，法院无法介入审判前的诉讼活动，也就无从实施任何形式的司法审查，因此，对于审前违法羁押，我国并不存在严格意义上的司法救济；从立法方面来看，在审前羁押制度中没有真正确立羁押比例原则，羁押不是一种独立的强制措施，而是拘留、逮捕后的当然状态，这种羁押依附于拘留、逮捕的立法设计，使得司法机关很难就违法羁押行为本身提供有效救济途径；此外，在司法实践中，办案机关采用羁押性强制措施所带来的诉讼“收益”远大于付出的“成本”，并且，对于违法羁押行为几乎没有诉讼“风险”，使得办案机关对于提供违法羁押救济的内在动力明显不足。第三部分论述了完善审前违法羁押救济机制的基本构想。完善审前违法羁押救济机制的前提条件在于：首先从诉讼观念和立法方面真正确立羁押比例原则，改变现行审前羁押期限“一刀切”的局面，并保障被羁押者的知悉权，明确司法机关对被羁押者的权利告知义务，完善被羁押者的基础性权利；其次，在具体制度设计上，一方面从“权利制约权力”的角度出发，借2012年《刑事诉讼法》完善辩护制度的契机，扩大辩护权在审前羁押决定中的影响，充分发挥辩护律师在审前羁押程序中的积极作用。另一方面从“权力制约权力”的角度出发，加强检察机关的法律监督职能，树立检察官在审前羁押程序中的裁判者角色，完善羁押必要性审查制度，建立听证式的羁押复查程序，赋予被羁押者充分参与审查程序的权利；最后，在配套措施方面，进一步完善现行取保候审制度，充分发挥取保候审的羁押替代功能。同时建立针对违法羁押的制裁机制，相应地增加违法羁押实施的“成本”和“风险”，以达到纠正违法羁押，保护被羁押者人权的目的。
[Abstract]:Pretrial detention, as an effective means of prosecuting crime in criminal proceedings, has its legitimacy and necessity, but if the detention power is not properly operated, it is easily infringed on the legal rights of the detainees. In our pretrial detention system, the false detain, arbitrary detention, and overdue custody have long existed, but in criminal proceedings there is a lack of such a kind. The effective remedy mechanism of illegal detention, although the criminal procedure law in 2012 has greatly modified and perfected the criminal compulsory measures including the pretrial detention system, but the revised "Criminal Procedure Law" does not touch the fundamental defects in the pretrial detention system, and it is difficult to change the current relief mechanism in the current illegal detention. Therefore, on the basis of deep reflection on the current pretrial detention relief mechanism in China, further research and exploration of practical and feasible scheme have become an urgent problem in the reform of the remedies for the present stage of illegal detention.
In addition to the introduction and conclusion, the text is divided into three parts, about 33000 words.
The first part discusses the basic content of the right of the remedies for the detainees. The remedies of the detainees refer to the suspects who have been detained before the trial. The defendants will apply for the legality, necessity and proportionality of the detention to the relevant organs according to law, and require the relevant organs to carry out public issues on the legality, necessity and proportionality of detention. The right to protect personal freedom from illegal infringement is to ensure the right of the detainees on the basis of the principle of presumption of innocence, the concept of human rights protection and the requirements of due process. The remedies of the detainees include the right to apply for the bail pending trial, apply for the right to recheck the detention, apply for release, and obtain the right of state compensation and so on.
The second part analyzes the existing problems of the pretrial detention relief mechanism in China and the reasons for the formation of the problems. First, the rights of the detainees can be very limited. Secondly, there is no strict judicial relief mechanism in the strict sense of the judicial relief mechanism in the strict sense. The cause of the above problems lies in three aspects: system factors, legislative factors, and case factors: in our country's current criminal procedure system, there is no "trial centralism" litigation mode, the court can not intervene before the trial, and it will not carry out any practice. In the form of judicial review, therefore, there is no strict judicial relief in our country for pretrial detention. From the legislative point of view, there is no real establishment of the principle of detainment in the pretrial detention system. Detention is not an independent coercive measure, but detention, of course after arrest, which is attached to detention. The legislative design of arrest makes it difficult for the judicial organ to provide effective remedy for the illegal detention itself. In addition, in judicial practice, the "income" brought by the detention compulsory measures is far greater than the "cost" in judicial practice, and there is almost no "risk" for the illegal detention, making the case a case of handling a case. The internal motivation for the provision of illegal detention is obviously insufficient.
The third part expounds the basic conception of perfecting the relief mechanism of pretrial illegal detention. The premise of perfecting the relief mechanism of pretrial detention lies in the following: first, we should establish the principle of the proportion of the detainment ratio in the legal and legislative aspects, change the situation of the "one size fits all" in the current pretrial detention period, and ensure the right of the detainees to know, and make clear the Department. The legal organs inform the rights of the detainees and improve the basic rights of the detainees. Secondly, on the basis of the design of the specific system, on the one hand, from the angle of "right restriction of power", the influence of the right of defense in the decision of pretrial detention is enlarged by the opportunity of "the criminal procedure law" in 2012 to improve the defense system and to give full play to the defense lawyer. On the other hand, on the basis of the positive role of the pretrial detention procedure, on the other hand, from the angle of "power restricting power", the legal supervision function of the procuratorial organs should be strengthened, the role of the prosecutor in the pretrial detention procedure is set up, the examination system of the necessity of detention is perfected, the procedure of hearing and custody reexamination is established, and the detainees are given full participation in the trial. In the end, in the supporting measures, we should further improve the existing bail pending trial system and give full play to the detaining alternative function of the bail pending trial. At the same time, establish the sanctions mechanism for the illegal detention, and increase the "cost" and "risk" of the illegal detention in order to correct the illegal detention and protect the human rights of the detainees. The purpose.
【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】