审查逮捕中社会危险性评估
发布时间：2018-07-28 16:25
【摘要】：逮捕强制措施在我国刑事诉讼中具有极强的严厉性,犯罪嫌疑人被捕后直接面临的是人身自由的受限以及较长时间的审前羁押,如不能正确使用,其基本人权将会受到极大侵害。修改后《刑事诉讼法》中,以分条列举的方式较为具体的阐述了我国现阶段逮捕中五种具体的社会危险性情形,进一步增强了司法适用性。但条款中大量出现的“企图”、“可能”等抽象性词语,使得社会危险性判定标准出现了不确定性和主观性,看似具体而详细的条款,并未给实践中的司法办案人员一个相对具体的操作标准和办案指引,犯罪嫌疑人社会危险性的大小以及有无逮捕的必要只能依靠案件承办人已有认知来进行主观判断,这极为不利于逮捕质量的提高以及公民人权的保障。因此,本文就刑事诉讼法中相关规定,对社会危险性的法律内涵、法律要素、判定标准及证明责任等内容在司法实践中如何准确理解进行深入剖析,并重点针对我国现阶段审查逮捕中社会危险性条件适用中存在的执法办案理念落后,证明标准的不健全,审限的局限等种种现实问题,尝试性的提出了量化判定标准,完善证明制度、听取多方意见、补强替代性的非羁押性强制措施的配套机制,加大法制教育和创新法制宣传等具体措施,以期能够更好的提高逮捕质量,降低逮捕率,减少不必要的逮捕,进而达到保障人权与打击违法犯罪的平衡,实现司法公正的目标。
[Abstract]:The coercive measures of arrest are very severe in the criminal procedure of our country. After arrest, the criminal suspects are directly faced with the restriction of personal freedom and the long period of pretrial detention, if they cannot be used correctly, Its basic human rights will be greatly violated. In the revised Criminal procedure Law, the article enumerates the five kinds of concrete social dangerous situation in the arrest of our country at present, and further strengthens the judicial applicability. However, a large number of abstract words such as "attempt" and "possibility" appear in the articles, which lead to uncertainty and subjectivity of the criteria for judging social danger, which appear to be specific and detailed clauses. It does not give practical judicial case handlers a relatively specific standard of operation and guidelines for handling cases. The size of the social danger of criminal suspects and the necessity of arrest can only be judged subjectively by the person who has already known the case. This is extremely detrimental to the quality of arrests and the protection of citizens' human rights. Therefore, this paper makes a thorough analysis of the relevant provisions of the Criminal procedure Law, the legal connotation, legal elements, judgment standards and burden of proof of the social danger in judicial practice. In view of the problems existing in the application of social dangerous conditions in the examination and arrest of our country, such as backward concept of law enforcement, imperfect standard of proof, limitation of trial limit and so on, this paper tries to put forward the criterion of quantification. Improve the system of proof, listen to various opinions, strengthen the supporting mechanism of alternative non-custodial coercive measures, increase legal education and innovate legal publicity, and so on, in order to better improve the quality of arrest and reduce the arrest rate. Reduce the unnecessary arrest, and then achieve the balance between protecting human rights and cracking down on crime, and realize the goal of judicial justice.
【学位授予单位】：江西理工大学
【学位级别】：硕士
【学位授予年份】：2017
【分类号】：D925.2
本文编号：2150874
[Abstract]:The coercive measures of arrest are very severe in the criminal procedure of our country. After arrest, the criminal suspects are directly faced with the restriction of personal freedom and the long period of pretrial detention, if they cannot be used correctly, Its basic human rights will be greatly violated. In the revised Criminal procedure Law, the article enumerates the five kinds of concrete social dangerous situation in the arrest of our country at present, and further strengthens the judicial applicability. However, a large number of abstract words such as "attempt" and "possibility" appear in the articles, which lead to uncertainty and subjectivity of the criteria for judging social danger, which appear to be specific and detailed clauses. It does not give practical judicial case handlers a relatively specific standard of operation and guidelines for handling cases. The size of the social danger of criminal suspects and the necessity of arrest can only be judged subjectively by the person who has already known the case. This is extremely detrimental to the quality of arrests and the protection of citizens' human rights. Therefore, this paper makes a thorough analysis of the relevant provisions of the Criminal procedure Law, the legal connotation, legal elements, judgment standards and burden of proof of the social danger in judicial practice. In view of the problems existing in the application of social dangerous conditions in the examination and arrest of our country, such as backward concept of law enforcement, imperfect standard of proof, limitation of trial limit and so on, this paper tries to put forward the criterion of quantification. Improve the system of proof, listen to various opinions, strengthen the supporting mechanism of alternative non-custodial coercive measures, increase legal education and innovate legal publicity, and so on, in order to better improve the quality of arrest and reduce the arrest rate. Reduce the unnecessary arrest, and then achieve the balance between protecting human rights and cracking down on crime, and realize the goal of judicial justice.
【学位授予单位】：江西理工大学
【学位级别】：硕士
【学位授予年份】：2017
【分类号】：D925.2
【参考文献】
相关期刊论文 前10条
1 肖瑞祥;;“曾经故意犯罪”径行逮捕的规范与限制[J];法制博览;2015年27期
2 张宁;;审查逮捕条件中“社会危险性”的运用状况及问题分析[J];法制与社会;2014年18期
3 忻鹏宇;;浅析刑事诉讼中“社会危险性”的法律含义[J];法制与社会;2014年13期
4 薛海蓉;詹静;;逮捕“社会危险性条件”适用的实践探索——基于江苏省南京市建邺区人民检察院试点经验的思考[J];人民检察;2014年03期
5 刘卫民;;从司法实践的角度浅谈逮捕条件中的社会危险性——以《刑事诉讼法》第七十九条第一款为基础[J];法制与社会;2013年31期
6 王长生;平华;;新刑事诉讼法实施中对逮捕必要性审查工作的思考[J];中国检察官;2013年13期
7 刘慧玲;;逮捕社会危险性的证明[J];人民检察;2013年03期
8 钱云华;汪薇;;从刑法学角度解析新刑诉法逮捕条件中的“社会危险性”[J];中国检察官;2013年01期
9 刘学敏;;逮捕的法定事由研究[J];中国刑事法杂志;2012年12期
10 梁天琦;;对推行提请批准逮捕案件双向说理制度的几点看法[J];法制与经济(下旬);2012年11期
相关硕士学位论文 前2条
1 王政义;论一般逮捕条件中的社会危险性[D];海南大学;2015年
2 周石;审查逮捕中社会危险性证明实证研究[D];西南政法大学;2014年
，本文编号：2150874
本文链接：https://www.wllwen.com/falvlunwen/susongfa/2150874.html
