刑事诉讼中的“另案处理”研究

发布时间：2019-04-23 15:29

【摘要】：我国刑事诉讼中的“另案处理”,是在一些共同犯罪案件中对已经到案的犯罪嫌疑人进行侦查、起诉或审判,而对因在逃等情形没有到案的犯罪嫌疑人,把他们从共同犯罪案件中“分离出去”,另立案件,进行侦查、起诉或审判。“另案处理”最早出现在最高人民检察院、最高人民法院、公安部在1984年出台的《关于怎样认定和处理流氓集团的意见》中,该意见第五点规定“除对已逃跑的流氓集团成员可以另案处理外,都应当一案处理,不要把案件拆散,分开处理。”在1999年以后,“另案处理”在实务中逐步推广开。“另案处理”的初衷值得肯定,其积极意义十分明显,因此,尽管它在理论上和实践中存在大量问题,但司法机关不仅仍然坚持使用,没有任何完全弃之不用的倾向,而且还在继续巩固、改革和完善它。本文基于“另案处理”既有的研究文献和成果,并结合《关于规范刑事案件“另案处理”适用的指导意见》的各项规定,在一定范围内对刑事司法实务中的“另案处理”进行了调研,访谈了一线办案人员,向他们收集了“另案处理”的典型案例,较为深入地了解和分析了他们在办理“另案处理”案件过程中遇到的各种问题,从而对刑事案件中的“另案处理”问题有了更加系统的认识。本文把“另案处理”在运行中存在的问题归纳为十个方面,包括“另案处理”的法律规范不健全、适用“另案处理”的办案主体及其裁量权存在争议、“另案处理”适用范围泛化、案卷材料移送不全和标注不统一、侦查部门对被“另案处理”人员的侦查不到位、“另案处理”案件中存在实体处理不当,以及“另案处理”案件依法公开不到位和量刑不匀衡、利害关系人的异议和救济程序缺失、对“另案处理”案件的监督机制不完善等。本文认为最高检和公安部对“另案处理”的界定(定义)比较科学,但实务中应当注意“另案处理”与“分案处理”的区分。“另案处理”问题产生的主要原因有:“另案处理”法律规范的不健全,“另案处理”司法实践的“活跃”程度与法律规定层面的“沉默”现状极为不符;司法机关考核制度存在弊端,不合理的考核机制不但不会提高司法机关的工作效率,反而会滋生出人为分案的弊端;“另案处理”监督机制的不完善,权力在运行中没有完善的监督机制很容易被滥用。针对上述问题,本文提出的主要策略有:完善“另案处理”的法律规范,在完善“另案处理”法律规范的同时对制度进行创新;完善侦查机关的内部考核机制,考核不仅要从多角度进行还要落实到对个人利益的影响之上;健全“另案处理”的监督机制,理清具体的监督范围、畅通监督渠道、建立全程动态监督机制、赋予检察机关质询权和纠正权;增强司法透明度,做到信息公开和强化外部监督。
[Abstract]:The "handling of other cases" in criminal proceedings in our country is to investigate, prosecute or try criminal suspects who have already arrived in some joint criminal cases, while criminal suspects who have not arrived because of the circumstances of being at large, and so on, are investigated, prosecuted or tried in some joint criminal cases. Separate them from joint criminal cases, establish separate cases, investigate, prosecute, or try. "handling another case" first appeared in the Supreme people's Procuratorate, the Supreme people's Court, and the Ministry of Public Security in the opinions on how to identify and deal with rogue groups issued in 1984. The fifth point of the opinion stipulates that "except for those members of a rogue group who have escaped, they shall be dealt with in one case, and shall not be separated from each other." After 1999, the "handling of separate cases" has been gradually promoted in practice. The original intention of "handling other cases" is commendable and its positive significance is very clear, and therefore, despite its numerous problems in theory and practice, the judiciary has not only persisted in its use, but has no tendency to abandon it completely, And continue to consolidate, reform and improve it. This article is based on the existing research literature and results of "handling other cases", and in combination with the provisions of the guidance on the Application of "regulating the handling of separate cases" in Criminal cases, To a certain extent, the "handling of separate cases" in criminal justice practice was investigated, and first-line case handlers were interviewed, and typical cases of "handling other cases" were collected from them. In-depth understanding and analysis of the various problems they have encountered in the process of handling "other cases" cases, so as to have a more systematic understanding of the problem of "handling other cases" in criminal cases. In this paper, the problems existing in the operation of "handling another case" are summarized into ten aspects, including the imperfect legal norms of "handling another case", and the dispute between the subject of the case handling and its discretion, which is applicable to the "handling of another case". The scope of application of "handling other cases" is generalized, the transfer of file materials is incomplete and the marking is not uniform, the investigation departments do not have in place the investigation of persons who have been "dealt with in separate cases", and there is improper substantive handling in cases of "handling other cases". And the cases of "handling other cases" are not in place according to law and the sentencing is uneven, the dissenting and relief procedures of interested parties are lacking, and the supervision mechanism of "handling other cases" is not perfect, and so on. This paper argues that the definition (definition) of "separate case handling" by the Ministry of Supreme Procuratorate and Public Security is more scientific, but the distinction between "separate case handling" and "separate case handling" should be paid attention to in practice. The main reasons for the problem of "handling another case" are: the legal norm of "handling another case" is not perfect, and the "active" degree of judicial practice of "handling another case" is not in conformity with the present situation of "silence" at the level of legal provisions; There are some disadvantages in the judicial organ assessment system. The unreasonable examination mechanism will not improve the efficiency of the judicial organs, but will breed the malpractice of man-made separation of cases. The supervision mechanism of "handling another case" is not perfect, and the supervision mechanism which is not perfect in the operation of power is easy to be abused. In view of the above problems, the main strategies put forward in this paper are as follows: perfecting the legal norms of "handling a separate case" and innovating the system while perfecting the legal norm of "dealing with a separate case"; To improve the internal assessment mechanism of investigation organs, the assessment should not only be carried out from many angles but also be implemented on the impact on individual interests; We should improve the supervision mechanism of "handling other cases", clarify the specific scope of supervision, smooth the channels of supervision, establish the whole dynamic supervision mechanism, and give the procuratorial organs the right to inquire and correct; Enhance judicial transparency, make information public and strengthen external supervision.
【学位授予单位】：西南大学
【学位级别】：硕士
【学位授予年份】：2017
【分类号】：D925.2

【参考文献】