刑事案例指导制度:难题与前景

发布时间：2018-07-28 20:33

【摘要】：刑事案例指导制度具有使规范明确化、使当事人获得公正感、减轻法官压力、统一法律适用等功能。近年来,最高人民法院在选择案例方面极为用心,但有的案例在重申公共议题、公共政策,有的案例与过去的司法解释完全重复。由最高司法机关强力推进刑事案例指导制度的思路,可能与罪刑法定相抵触,与转变社会中的经济和社会政策相悖,过多揭示疑难问题,不利于实现最高人民法院近年来所提倡的"案结事了",也可能承受理论上持不同见解者的批评。未来应当重点考虑平衡由最高人民法院作为案例发布唯一主体的"制度建构"和地方法院、专家学者共同参与的"自发秩序形成"之间的关系,最高人民法院不应是唯一的垄断力量,建立详尽的案例指导制度配套措施,增设"大法官会议"制度,承认地方法院经常参酌案例的指导性地位,肯定基层法官、专家学者、律师对于刑事案例指导建设的独特贡献。
[Abstract]:The guidance system of criminal cases has the functions of making the norms clear, making the parties feel fair, reducing the pressure on the judges and unifying the application of the law. In recent years, the Supreme people's Court has paid great attention to the selection of cases, but some cases reiterate public issues, public policies, and some cases completely duplicate past judicial interpretations. The idea of forcefully pushing forward the criminal case guidance system by the highest judicial organ may conflict with the legality of a crime, run counter to the economic and social policies in changing society, and reveal too many difficult problems. It is not conducive to the realization of the "case closure" advocated by the Supreme people's Court in recent years, and it may also be criticized by those who hold different views in theory. In the future, emphasis should be placed on balancing the relationship between "institutional construction" and "spontaneous order formation" in which the Supreme people's Court is the sole subject of case publication and the local courts, experts and scholars participate together. The Supreme people's Court should not be the only monopoly force. It should establish a detailed system of guiding cases, set up a system of "justices' meetings", recognize the guiding status of the local courts' regular reference to cases, and affirm the basic judges, experts and scholars. Lawyer's unique contribution to the construction of criminal case guidance.
【作者单位】：清华大学法学院;
【分类号】：D926.2;D924

【共引文献】