刑事一审审限制度研究
发布时间：2018-09-03 13:32
【摘要】：我国的刑事一审审限制度是具有区域特色的法律制度,它是基于我国案卷中心主义的诉讼模式以及司法实践中高超期羁押率而产生的,它的主要功能在于提高办案效率以及保障被告人的权利,援引最高人民法院副院长沈德咏的话说：“案件的审理期限,是法律对人民法院审理案件所作出的最基本的时间要求,其目的是在保证案件审判质量的前提下,提高司法效率,使当事人在法定期限内获得公正审判。”由此我们可以看出审限制度是为公正与效率的兼顾而制定的。笔者在考察西方法治发达国家的审判制度时,没有发现关于审限制度的规定,但是它们的审判立法同样致力于提高司法效率与保障人权,同样致力于公正与效率的兼顾；诸如通过辩诉交易程序、刑事处罚令、集中审理原则来提高司法效率；比如可以通过对未决羁押实行司法审查制度,广泛的使用非羁押性强制措施,保障被告人的权利。 同样的立法目的却产生截然不同的法律制度,背后到底隐藏什么样的原因?不同的法律制度现今的运行状况到底如何?我国刑事一审审限制度在实际运行中存在哪些不足?现行刑事一审审限制度对于我国法律界工作提出哪些要求?我们将如何完善这一重要的具有区域特色的法律制度?这一系列的问题引起了笔者的兴趣。 本文试图从我国刑事审限制度产生与发展的原因入手,分析其生存的法制土壤,进而在此基础上借鉴国外法治发达国家关于审限的相关制度经验,完善我国刑事一审审限制度,使其进入一个良性运作的轨道。
[Abstract]:The system of first instance trial in our country is a legal system with regional characteristics. It is based on the litigation mode of file centralism and the high rate of extended detention in judicial practice. Its main function is to improve the efficiency of handling cases and to protect the rights of the accused. Shen Deyong, vice president of the Supreme people's Court, was quoted as saying: "the time limit for hearing a case is the most basic time requirement made by law for the people's court to hear a case." The aim is to improve the efficiency of the administration of justice on the premise of ensuring the quality of the trial, so that the parties concerned can obtain a fair trial within the statutory time limit. " Therefore, we can see that the system of trial limit is made for the consideration of justice and efficiency. When the author inspects the trial system of the developed countries with the rule of law in the west, it does not find the stipulation about the trial limit system, but their trial legislation is also devoted to improving the judicial efficiency and protecting human rights, and also devoting to the balance of justice and efficiency; Such as through plea bargaining procedure, criminal punishment order, centralized trial principle to improve judicial efficiency; for example, through the pending custody of judicial review system, the widespread use of non-custodial coercive measures to protect the rights of the accused. The same legislative purpose produces a completely different legal system. What are the reasons behind it? What is the current state of operation of different legal systems? What are the deficiencies in the actual operation of the system of first instance trial in our country? What requirements does the current system of first instance trial put forward for the work of the legal profession in our country? How will we improve this important regional legal system? This series of questions aroused the author's interest. This paper attempts to start with the causes of the emergence and development of the system of criminal adjudication in our country, analyzes the legal soil of its existence, and then, on this basis, draws lessons from the relevant system experiences of developed countries with the rule of law in foreign countries, and consummates the system of the first instance of criminal trial in our country. Put it on a sound track.
【学位授予单位】：湖南师范大学
【学位级别】：硕士
【学位授予年份】：2014
【分类号】：D925.2
[Abstract]:The system of first instance trial in our country is a legal system with regional characteristics. It is based on the litigation mode of file centralism and the high rate of extended detention in judicial practice. Its main function is to improve the efficiency of handling cases and to protect the rights of the accused. Shen Deyong, vice president of the Supreme people's Court, was quoted as saying: "the time limit for hearing a case is the most basic time requirement made by law for the people's court to hear a case." The aim is to improve the efficiency of the administration of justice on the premise of ensuring the quality of the trial, so that the parties concerned can obtain a fair trial within the statutory time limit. " Therefore, we can see that the system of trial limit is made for the consideration of justice and efficiency. When the author inspects the trial system of the developed countries with the rule of law in the west, it does not find the stipulation about the trial limit system, but their trial legislation is also devoted to improving the judicial efficiency and protecting human rights, and also devoting to the balance of justice and efficiency; Such as through plea bargaining procedure, criminal punishment order, centralized trial principle to improve judicial efficiency; for example, through the pending custody of judicial review system, the widespread use of non-custodial coercive measures to protect the rights of the accused. The same legislative purpose produces a completely different legal system. What are the reasons behind it? What is the current state of operation of different legal systems? What are the deficiencies in the actual operation of the system of first instance trial in our country? What requirements does the current system of first instance trial put forward for the work of the legal profession in our country? How will we improve this important regional legal system? This series of questions aroused the author's interest. This paper attempts to start with the causes of the emergence and development of the system of criminal adjudication in our country, analyzes the legal soil of its existence, and then, on this basis, draws lessons from the relevant system experiences of developed countries with the rule of law in foreign countries, and consummates the system of the first instance of criminal trial in our country. Put it on a sound track.
【学位授予单位】：湖南师范大学
【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9条
1 万毅,刘沛，
本文编号：2220115
本文链接：https://www.wllwen.com/falvlunwen/susongfa/2220115.html
