我国刑事庭前会议程序研究

发布时间：2018-07-02 12:45

本文选题：刑事诉讼 + 庭前会议　；参考：《辽宁大学》2014年硕士论文

【摘要】：随着新刑事诉讼法第一百八十二条的颁布，我国也建立了具有中国特色的刑事庭前会议制度。这是我国刑事诉讼程序的重大突破。也是增强控辩交锋的表现。对于保障人权和惩罚犯罪具有重要意义。庭前会议程序彰显了提高诉讼效率、保障人权以及实现审判公正的价值。在提高诉讼效率方面。庭前会议通过对证据整理能够缩减开庭审理的时间；通过对程序性问题审查保障庭审的连贯性。在保障人权方面。庭前会议通过审查羁押期限和非法证据排除保障被告人权利。在实现审判公正方面。庭前会议通过被告人及其辩护人的积极参与保障了审判的公正性。境外关于刑事庭前会议程序的立法实践相对完善，本文以英美为例分析了当事人主义模式下的庭前会议的特点，同时概括出值得借鉴的方面。又以法德为重点归纳了职权主义模式下庭前会议的立法形式。最后对日本和我国台湾地区的庭前会议程序加以分析，吸纳可以借鉴的经验。当然我国的庭前会议程序有着自身的特点。它不同于境外的预审程序，也不等同于证据开示制度。而是具有自身特点的刑事庭前会议制度。在各地一年的司法实践中，庭前会议被广泛运用，得到了良好效果。但是由于初次立法以及实践经验的欠缺，也产生了许多问题。例如庭前会议的效力没有明确的规定；对于庭前会议的适用范围列举的不够全面；主持庭前会议的主体存在争议；法律责任的承担有所遗漏；以及庭前会议是否公开进行，，会议的次数、方式都没有细化的规定。这些问题都需要在理论与实践中找到答案，使阻碍庭前会议发展的因素逐渐减少。最后笔者从非法证据的排除、庭前会议的效力和法律监督三方面，提出了完善的建议。首先非法证据的排除关乎到案件实体审理的公正性，也关系到被告人诉讼权利的保障。庭前会议程序应当如何定位，发挥何种作用都需要法律及司法解释的进一步明确。其次庭前会议的效力是学者们讨论非常集中的热点。良好的制度如果没有强制力的保障很难发挥应有的效果。因此如何授权于庭前会议也是重点需要解决的难题。最后不容忽视的便是法律监督。只有是庭前会议程序在法律监督的机制下发展，才能越走越远。在实践中，人民检察院与人民法院也应当及时转变工作方式，加强有关刑事庭前会议的理论学习，增强程序意识和权利意识。同时辩护人也发挥着重要的作用。涉及阅卷权的行使，对程序性问题的提出异议以及对证据进行展示等工作。因此辩护人制度也需要进行相应配套体系的完善。希望本文能够为我国刑事庭前会议程序的完善作出贡献。使其进一步在提高诉讼效率、保障人权和实现审判公正方面发挥应有的价值。
[Abstract]:With the promulgation of Article 182 of the new Criminal procedure Law, China has also established the system of pre-court meeting with Chinese characteristics. This is a major breakthrough in our criminal procedure. It is also an enhancement of the performance of the prosecution and debate. It is of great significance for the protection of human rights and the punishment of crimes. The procedure of pre-trial meeting demonstrates the value of improving the efficiency of litigation, protecting human rights and realizing justice of trial. In improving the efficiency of litigation. Pre-court meetings can reduce the length of hearings by collating evidence and ensuring continuity by examining procedural issues. With regard to the protection of human rights. The pretrial meeting protects the rights of the accused by examining the duration of detention and the exclusion of illegal evidence. In order to achieve justice in the trial. The trial fairness was ensured by the active participation of the accused and their defenders. The legislative practice of the criminal pretrial meeting procedure abroad is relatively perfect. This paper takes Anglo-American as an example to analyze the characteristics of the pretrial meeting under the mode of litigant doctrine, and generalizes the aspects that are worth using for reference at the same time. It also sums up the legislative form of the pre-court meeting in the mode of authority-doctrine with emphasis on France and Germany. Finally, this paper analyzes the procedure of the pre-trial meeting in Japan and Taiwan, and draws on the experience that can be used for reference. Of course, our country's pre-court meeting procedure has its own characteristics. It is different from the pretrial procedure outside the country, nor is it equal to the system of discovery of evidence. It is the pre-court meeting system with its own characteristics. In the judicial practice of one year, the pre-court meeting has been widely used and got good results. However, due to the lack of initial legislation and practical experience, there are also many problems. For example, the validity of the pre-trial meeting is not clearly defined; the scope of application of the pre-trial meeting is not comprehensive enough; the subject presiding over the pretrial meeting is controversial; the legal liability is omitted; and whether the pretrial meeting is held in public, There are no detailed rules on the number and manner of meetings. These questions need to be answered in theory and practice, so that the factors hindering the development of pre-trial meeting are gradually reduced. Finally, the author puts forward some suggestions from three aspects: the exclusion of illegal evidence, the effectiveness of the pretrial meeting and the legal supervision. Firstly, the exclusion of illegal evidence is related to the fairness of the case and the protection of the defendant's right of action. How to position and how to play a role need further clarification of law and judicial interpretation. Secondly, the effectiveness of the pre-court meeting is a hot topic for scholars to discuss. It is difficult for a good system to play its due effect without the guarantee of force. Therefore, how to authorize the pre-court meeting is also a key problem to be solved. The last thing that can not be ignored is legal supervision. Only when the pretrial meeting procedure develops under the mechanism of legal supervision, can it go further and further. In practice, the people's procuratorate and the people's court should change their working methods in time, strengthen the theory study of the criminal court meeting, and strengthen the consciousness of procedure and right. At the same time, defenders also play an important role. It involves the exercise of marking right, the objection to procedural issues and the presentation of evidence. Therefore, the defense system also needs to improve the corresponding supporting system. It is hoped that this paper will contribute to the perfection of the pre-court meeting procedure in our country. So that it can further improve the efficiency of litigation, protect human rights and realize the justice of trial.
【学位授予单位】：辽宁大学
【学位级别】：硕士
【学位授予年份】：2014
【分类号】：D925.2

【参考文献】