我国撤回公诉制度的实证研究

发布时间：2018-08-19 12:03

【摘要】：全国人民代表大会2012年3月14日修改的《中华人民共和国刑事诉讼法》(以下简称《刑事诉讼法》)中没有规定人民检察院对刑事公诉案件的撤诉权,但是在司法实践过程中,人民检察院根据《最高人民法院关与执行(中华人民共和国刑事诉讼)法若干问题解释》(以下简称《解释》)242条第5款规定；以及《人民检察院刑事诉讼规则》(以下简称《规则》)第459条的规定,行使对公诉案件的撤诉权。因此,在学界中一部分观点认为“撤诉权”是司法解释超越立法的规定,应当废除；另一部分观点则认为人民检察院的撤诉在司法实践中也具有一定的程序价值,因此,有必要在发现问题的基础上有针对性地完善我国刑事公诉案件的撤诉制度。除前言和结语外,正文分为五部分,共两万余字。第一部分,撤回公诉制度的文本依据,即《刑事诉讼法》、《解释》、《规则》在历次修改中关与对撤回公诉制度的规定与变化。第二部分,2009至2013年我国公诉机关典型撤诉案件的基本情况。第一,2009至2013年公诉机关典型撤诉案件中公诉机关撤诉的过程及法院的处理情况。分别有2009年河南省沁阳市赵满仓诽谤案,2011年重庆市李庄律师伪证案,2012年河南省郑州市小宇故意伤人案,2012年兰州市陈平福案煽动颠覆国家政权案,2013年广西姚云松、廖毅深合同诈骗案。第二,2009至2013年公诉机关典型撤诉案件撤诉原因分析(结合我国C市2009至2011年公诉案件撤诉原因统计)。第三,2009至2013年公诉机关典型撤诉案件撤回起诉后的处理情况(结合我国C市2009至2011年公诉案件撤诉后的处理情况)。第四,2009至2013年公诉机关典型撤诉案件撤诉的效果。第三部分,我国撤回公诉制度的正当化根据。第一,撤回公诉制度是公诉权裁量性的体现,第二,撤回公诉制度是各国为满足诉讼需要的普遍做法,第三,撤回公诉是提高诉讼效率,实现诉讼经济的需要,第四,撤回公诉是司法实践的客观需要。第四部分,我国撤回公诉制度存在的问题。第一,立法方面问题,第二,适用程序方面问题,首先撤诉的事由规定不明确,然后撤诉的时间与次数规定不明确,然后撤诉的效力不明,然后撤诉后的处理不明确,最后是撤诉的制约机制不完善。第三,司法实践方面问题。第四,当事人诉讼权利及救济问题,分别为首先是无罪判决和被告人的知情权,再者是国家赔偿问题,最后是关于被害人及其法定代理人申请抗诉的权利。第五部分,撤回公诉制度的规范和完善,第一,在立法上明确规定撤回公诉制度。第二,完善撤回公诉制度的适用程序,首先是进一步明确规定撤诉的事由, 然后,明确规定撤诉的时间,然后是明确撤诉后案件的处理方式,最后明确当事人的权利救济。第三,建立全面的监督制约工作机制。首先是审判机关的监督制约,然后为检察机关内部的监督制约,分别为建立检察机关撤回起诉报上级审批制度和严格检察机关内部审核把关制度。第四,建立科学的考评机制。
[Abstract]:The "Criminal Procedure Law of the People's Republic of China" (hereinafter referred to as the "Criminal Procedure Law") amended by the National People's Congress on March 14, 2012 does not stipulate the right of the People's Procuratorate to withdraw a criminal prosecution case, but in the course of judicial practice, the People's Procuratorate shall, in accordance with the provisions of the "Supreme People's Court Guan and Execution" ( The article 242, paragraph 5, and the article 459 of the Rules of Criminal Procedure of the People's Procuratorate (hereinafter referred to as the Rules) exercise the right to withdraw a prosecution case. From the point of view, the withdrawal of the people's procuratorate also has certain procedural value in judicial practice. Therefore, it is necessary to perfect the withdrawal system of criminal public prosecution cases on the basis of finding out the problems.
Apart from the preface and conclusion, the text is divided into five parts, with a total of 20000 words.
The first part is about the text basis of withdrawing the public prosecution system, that is, the provisions and changes of withdrawing the public prosecution system in previous revisions of the Criminal Procedure Law, Interpretation and Rules.
The second part is the basic situation of the typical withdrawal cases of the public prosecution in China from 2009 to 2013. First, the withdrawal process of the public prosecution in the typical withdrawal cases of the public prosecution from 2009 to 2013 and the court's handling. There are Zhao Mancang libel case in Qinyang City, Henan Province in 2009, Lizhuang lawyer perjury case in Chongqing City in 2011, Zhengzhou City, Henan Province in 2012. Shixiaoyu deliberately hurt people, Lanzhou Chen Pingfu case in 2012 instigated subversion of the state power, Guangxi Yao Yunsong, Liao Yishen contract fraud case in 2013. Second, the analysis of the reasons for withdrawal of typical cases of public prosecution from 2009 to 2013 (combined with the reasons for withdrawal of public prosecution cases in China's C city from 2009 to 2011 statistics). Third, the public prosecution code from 2009 to 2013. Fourth, the effect of typical withdrawal cases by public prosecution organs from 2009 to 2013.
The third part is the legitimate basis of withdrawing the public prosecution system in China. First, withdrawing the public prosecution system is the embodiment of the discretion of the right to prosecute. Second, withdrawing the public prosecution system is a common practice to meet the needs of litigation in various countries. Third, withdrawing the public prosecution is the need to improve litigation efficiency and realize litigation economy. Fourth, withdrawing the public prosecution is the objective need of judicial practice. Yes.
The fourth part, the problems of withdrawing the public prosecution system in our country. First, the legislative aspects, second, the application of procedural aspects. First, the reasons for withdrawing the prosecution are not clear, then the time and frequency of withdrawing the prosecution are not clear, then the effectiveness of withdrawing the prosecution is not clear, then the handling of withdrawing the prosecution is not clear, and finally the restriction mechanism of withdrawing the prosecution is not perfect. Fourthly, the litigant's litigation rights and remedies are respectively the innocent judgment and the defendant's right to know, the state compensation and the right of the victim and his legal representative to apply for protest.
The fifth part is the standardization and perfection of the withdrawal of public prosecution system. First, the withdrawal of public prosecution system is clearly stipulated in legislation.
Thirdly, establish a comprehensive supervision and restraint mechanism. First, the supervision and restraint of the judicial organs, and then for the internal supervision and restraint of the procuratorial organs, respectively, set up the procuratorial organs to withdraw the prosecution report to the higher level for examination and approval. System and strict internal control system for procuratorial organs. Fourth, establish a scientific evaluation mechanism.
【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】