刑事审级制度形式化问题研究
发布时间：2018-11-13 16:58
【摘要】：刑事审级制度的重要功能之一就是防止审判权滥用。如果刑事审级制度在运行中被虚置,则无法防止权力滥用,将会损害被告人和被害人的合法权益,阻碍司法公正的实现。以两审终审为主体、死刑复核程序和审判监督程序为补充的四级两审终审制在我国出现了形式化问题。审判实践中,上下级法院关系出现了严重的行政化问题。下级法院经常将正在审理的案件报送上级法院请示处理意见,上级法院为此也主动对其汇报的案件予以指导。上级法院的法官去看守所提审被告人,一般由原审法院的主审人陪同,主审人会将自己对案件的个人观点,讲述给二审法官,上下级间进行详细沟通,甚至一审的法官会直接表示被告人犯罪情节特别恶劣,影响特别重大,示意二审法官应当重判或者维持。法院内部审判方式行政化,承办法官阅卷、提审、开庭、接见被害人及被告人的律师,他的裁判基础很好,可他对案件无最后决定权。院长和庭长对案件的掌控造成了“审者不判,判者不审”的结果。审判委员会裁判案件导致了审理权与裁判权的分裂。我国各级党委都设有政法委员会,遇有重大或疑难复杂的刑事案件都要向政法委员会汇报,由其协调组织多个部门进行研究,并提出处理意见。这种做法的本意是汇集多方力量妥善解决问题,却在实际上架空了审判独立原则,政法委临时带领的这个团队变成了幕后的裁判者。粗糙的一审程序使得一审案件质量无法得到保证。我国刑事第一审案件开庭审理走过场,在控辩不平衡、控审不分的大环境下,公诉人往往特别强势,律师的辩护则显得单薄,辩护人如果是法院为被告人指定的,其辩护基本上都是敷衍了事,并不认真履行职责,直接导致被告人的辩护权得不到保障。基层法院普遍存在刑事审判庭向其他审判庭借人组成合议庭的问题,导致合议庭虚置。上级法院指派本院法官赴下级法院就任院长、副院长、庭长,造成上下级审判人员混同问题。二审程序虽然实行全面审查原则,但我国二审法院普遍实行书面审理方式,并且上下级法院关系出现行政化倾向的情况下,二审程序没有发挥法律赋予的纠正一审错误裁判,为当事人提供权利救济的功能。死刑复核程序趋向行政复议。死刑案件如果一审是由最高人民法院受理的,那么该案一审终审,被告人的上诉权被剥夺,最高法院仍然是先自己作出判决然后再自己进行复核。再审程序极大扩张,导致案件终审不终。我国刑事审级制度形式化问题凸显,严重影响了我国法治现代化的进程。而要想改变这一现状,实现司法公正、司法效率的价值目标,就需要纠正错误的理念,进行深度改革。笔者以所在法院审级职能的实际运行状况为出发点,对全国有影响的典型案例进行分析,剖析了我国刑事审级制度存在的形式化问题,结合刑事审级制度的基本原理,指出应对刑事审级制度形式化问题,在微观方面要推进庭审实质化。在宏观方面,当前全面实施的司法体制改革中各项深入、具体的举措可以从多方面解决我国刑事审级制度形式化问题。通过考察国外先进法治国家刑事审级制度的相关立法规定、制度运行模式,得出各国审级制度虽相异但多数国家均将第三审程序定位为法律审的结论,笔者提出了在吸收和借鉴国外先进经验的基础上,建立有限的三审终审制度的构想,在现行的等级结构不变情况下重新划分各级法院的职能。具体说就是建立四级三审终审制度,在法律上对于一定数量的案件给其两次上诉的机会,案件的第三审定位为法律审,不进行事实审。同时将死刑复核程序的性质重新定位,使其回归诉讼程序本身,纳入到三审终审的审级制度中。对审判监督程序予以完善,再审的提起必须严格化。
[Abstract]:One of the important functions of the criminal justice system is to prevent the abuse of the jurisdiction. If the system of criminal examination is set up in operation, it is not possible to prevent the abuse of power, which will damage the lawful rights and interests of the defendant and the victim, and hinder the realization of the judicial justice. In this paper, the formal problems of the four-level two-court-of-the-the-case system, which are complementary to the two-stage and final-of-the-case, are the main subject of the death penalty review and the procedure of trial supervision. In the trial practice, the relationship between the upper and lower courts has serious administrative problems. The lower courts often submit the cases to be heard to the superior court for handling the handling opinions, and the higher courts will also take the initiative to direct the cases to which they are reported. The judge of the superior court shall be accompanied by the presiding officer of the original court, and the presiding judge will give a personal view of the case to the judge of the second instance and the upper and lower level, and even the judge of the first instance will directly indicate that the crime of the defendant is particularly bad, The impact is particularly significant, and the second instance of the second instance should be re-judged or maintained. The administration of the court's internal trial mode, the undertaking of the judge's reading, the trial, the hearing, the interview of the victim and the lawyer of the accused, the basis of his decision is very good, but he has no final decision on the case. The President and the President have led to the 鈥淭he reviewer shall not make a judgment, and the judge shall not review it.鈥，
本文编号：2329749
[Abstract]:One of the important functions of the criminal justice system is to prevent the abuse of the jurisdiction. If the system of criminal examination is set up in operation, it is not possible to prevent the abuse of power, which will damage the lawful rights and interests of the defendant and the victim, and hinder the realization of the judicial justice. In this paper, the formal problems of the four-level two-court-of-the-the-case system, which are complementary to the two-stage and final-of-the-case, are the main subject of the death penalty review and the procedure of trial supervision. In the trial practice, the relationship between the upper and lower courts has serious administrative problems. The lower courts often submit the cases to be heard to the superior court for handling the handling opinions, and the higher courts will also take the initiative to direct the cases to which they are reported. The judge of the superior court shall be accompanied by the presiding officer of the original court, and the presiding judge will give a personal view of the case to the judge of the second instance and the upper and lower level, and even the judge of the first instance will directly indicate that the crime of the defendant is particularly bad, The impact is particularly significant, and the second instance of the second instance should be re-judged or maintained. The administration of the court's internal trial mode, the undertaking of the judge's reading, the trial, the hearing, the interview of the victim and the lawyer of the accused, the basis of his decision is very good, but he has no final decision on the case. The President and the President have led to the 鈥淭he reviewer shall not make a judgment, and the judge shall not review it.鈥，
本文编号：2329749
本文链接：https://www.wllwen.com/falvlunwen/susongfa/2329749.html
