论我国刑事二审发回重审制度的完善
发布时间：2018-08-09 14:43
【摘要】：我国刑事二审发回重审制度无论在司法实践中还是学术界一直是存在争议的。该制度当然有其存在的价值，一定程度上实现实体上的正义和程序上的正义。但是该制度尽管在2012年进行了修改，还有很多的问题。首先是对于发回重审的理由部分，“事实不清，证据不足”概念的模糊性，尤其在司法实践中，产生了应用地随意性；并且该理由与疑罪从无原则相冲突。其次是在发回重审的程序方面，首先对于违反法定程序发回重审的次数未做限定，很容易产生循环审判；被告人对是否发回重审没有选择权，尤其针对案件对违反法定程序，但是实际上对被告人并没有损害的，此时应给予被告人充分的选择权，考虑被告人的意愿后决定是否将案件发回重审，因为发回重审使得原审判决归于无效，加长了被告人羁押期限，，使得案件一直处于“悬案”状态，不利于维护被告人的合法权益。最后，对于案件的事实不清，证据不足，二审法院经查后的审理大的方式有两种，一是可以改判，二是可以发回原审法院重审，这就使得二审法院不能充分发挥其功能，且也会成为法官规避责任的方式，扭曲了发回重审制度的价值。 本论文就上述问题作了一下完善，首先是对发回重审的理由部分进行重新地构建，对于“事实不清，证据不足”案件，应当按照疑罪从无原则进行审理，应当贯彻疑罪从无原则的在司法实践中的应用；同时二审法院应当在查清案件的基础上直接改判，不得发回原审法院审理，简洁明了。其次对发回重审的程序进行完善，对“可能发回重审”的标准重新界定，使得其明确具体化，削弱法官的自由裁量权；对违反法定程序的发回重审的次数做出明确的规定，以排除出现循环审判的现象；赋予被告人的程序选择权，同时加强检察院的对发回重审制度的司法监督。
[Abstract]:The system of retrial of criminal second instance in our country has always been controversial in judicial practice and academic circles. This system certainly has its existence value, realizes the entity justice and the procedure justice to a certain extent. But although the system was revised in 2012, there are still many problems. Firstly, the fuzziness of the concept of "the fact is unclear, the evidence is insufficient", especially in the judicial practice, has produced the application randomness, and this reason conflicts with the suspicion crime from the principle. Secondly, in the procedure of retrial, first of all, there is no limit on the number of retrials in violation of the legal procedures, so it is easy to produce a circular trial; the accused has no right to choose whether to return the retrial, especially to the violation of the legal procedures in the case. However, in practice, if the defendant is not harmed, the defendant should be given a full option to decide whether to return the case to a retrial after considering the will of the defendant, because the return of the trial will render the original judgment null and void. The longer the period of custody of the defendant, the case has been in a "pending case" state, is not conducive to safeguarding the legitimate rights and interests of the defendant. Finally, with regard to the facts of the case and the lack of evidence, there are two major ways for the court of second instance to hear the case after investigation. One is that it can be revised, the other is that it can be sent back to the original trial court for a retrial. This makes the court of second instance unable to give full play to its function. It will also become a way for judges to evade their responsibilities, distorting the value of retrial system. This paper makes a little improvement on the above questions, first of all, it reconstructs the reason part of the retrial, for the case of "the facts are not clear, the evidence is insufficient", we should proceed to the trial according to the principle of the suspect crime. At the same time, the court of second instance should revise the sentence directly on the basis of investigating the case, and not return to the original court for trial. Secondly, to perfect the procedure of retrial, to redefine the standard of "possible retrial", to make it clear and concrete, to weaken the judge's discretion, and to make a clear stipulation on the times of retrial in violation of the legal procedure. In order to exclude the phenomenon of cyclic trial, to give the defendant the right to choose the procedure, and to strengthen the judicial supervision of the system of retrial by the procuratorate.
【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
本文编号：2174409
[Abstract]:The system of retrial of criminal second instance in our country has always been controversial in judicial practice and academic circles. This system certainly has its existence value, realizes the entity justice and the procedure justice to a certain extent. But although the system was revised in 2012, there are still many problems. Firstly, the fuzziness of the concept of "the fact is unclear, the evidence is insufficient", especially in the judicial practice, has produced the application randomness, and this reason conflicts with the suspicion crime from the principle. Secondly, in the procedure of retrial, first of all, there is no limit on the number of retrials in violation of the legal procedures, so it is easy to produce a circular trial; the accused has no right to choose whether to return the retrial, especially to the violation of the legal procedures in the case. However, in practice, if the defendant is not harmed, the defendant should be given a full option to decide whether to return the case to a retrial after considering the will of the defendant, because the return of the trial will render the original judgment null and void. The longer the period of custody of the defendant, the case has been in a "pending case" state, is not conducive to safeguarding the legitimate rights and interests of the defendant. Finally, with regard to the facts of the case and the lack of evidence, there are two major ways for the court of second instance to hear the case after investigation. One is that it can be revised, the other is that it can be sent back to the original trial court for a retrial. This makes the court of second instance unable to give full play to its function. It will also become a way for judges to evade their responsibilities, distorting the value of retrial system. This paper makes a little improvement on the above questions, first of all, it reconstructs the reason part of the retrial, for the case of "the facts are not clear, the evidence is insufficient", we should proceed to the trial according to the principle of the suspect crime. At the same time, the court of second instance should revise the sentence directly on the basis of investigating the case, and not return to the original court for trial. Secondly, to perfect the procedure of retrial, to redefine the standard of "possible retrial", to make it clear and concrete, to weaken the judge's discretion, and to make a clear stipulation on the times of retrial in violation of the legal procedure. In order to exclude the phenomenon of cyclic trial, to give the defendant the right to choose the procedure, and to strengthen the judicial supervision of the system of retrial by the procuratorate.
【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】
相关期刊论文 前10条
1 刘少军;;论刑事诉讼合意的理论基础[J];安徽大学学报(哲学社会科学版);2008年05期
2 方晨辰;;刑事二审发回重审制度之实然分析与规范设计[J];福建法学;2011年03期
3 徐秉晖;;我国刑事二审发回重审制度实证与理论分析[J];法律适用;2006年06期
4 骆小凤;;论我国刑事二审发回重审制度的改革进路[J];法制与社会;2009年36期
5 姜保忠;;刑事发回重审制度的问题与完善[J];法治研究;2010年11期
6 沈霞;;对我国刑事二审发回重审制度执行困境与架构重塑之思考——以某市中级人民法院刑事二审案件为例[J];法律适用;2013年10期
7 唐旭东;;刑事诉讼中重复追诉问题研究[J];河北法学;2008年09期
8 方晨辰;;我国刑事二审发回重审制度的实然分析与规范设计[J];河南警察学院学报;2011年06期
9 陈卫东,李奋飞;刑事二审“发回重审”制度之重构[J];法学研究;2004年01期
10 汪海燕;;论刑事程序倒流[J];法学研究;2008年05期
本文编号：2174409
本文链接：https://www.wllwen.com/falvlunwen/susongfa/2174409.html
