论庭审模式与查明案件事实真相
发布时间：2019-06-04 09:07
【摘要】：公正的实现要求刑事程序查明案件事实真相,而法庭审理是查明案件事实真相的关键性程序。以美国为代表的对抗式庭审程序将经由正当程序所得事实即视为真实,而以德国为代表的审问式庭审程序则以追求实质真实为目的。我国现行的控辩式庭审模式有自身鲜明的特点,但"先定后审"的旧弊仍未革除,庭审实质化难以实现。对庭审方式的改革应当坚持查明事实真相,进一步推动证人出庭作证,扩大法律援助范围,严格实行非法证据排除规则,完善认罪认罚从宽制度。
[Abstract]:The realization of justice requires the criminal procedure to find out the truth of the case, and the court trial is the key procedure to find out the truth of the case. The adversarial trial procedure represented by the United States regards the facts obtained through due process as true, while the interrogative trial procedure represented by Germany aims at pursuing substantive truth. The current trial mode of charge and defense in our country has its own distinct characteristics, but the old disadvantages of "deciding first and then trial" have not been eliminated, and it is difficult to realize the materialization of the trial. The reform of trial mode should persist in finding out the truth, further promoting witnesses to testify in court, expanding the scope of legal aid, strictly implementing the rule of excluding illegal evidence, and perfecting the system of lenient confession and punishment.
【作者单位】： 国家"2011计划"中国政法大学司法文明协同创新中心;中国政法大学刑事司法学院;
【分类号】：D925.2
[Abstract]:The realization of justice requires the criminal procedure to find out the truth of the case, and the court trial is the key procedure to find out the truth of the case. The adversarial trial procedure represented by the United States regards the facts obtained through due process as true, while the interrogative trial procedure represented by Germany aims at pursuing substantive truth. The current trial mode of charge and defense in our country has its own distinct characteristics, but the old disadvantages of "deciding first and then trial" have not been eliminated, and it is difficult to realize the materialization of the trial. The reform of trial mode should persist in finding out the truth, further promoting witnesses to testify in court, expanding the scope of legal aid, strictly implementing the rule of excluding illegal evidence, and perfecting the system of lenient confession and punishment.
【作者单位】： 国家"2011计划"中国政法大学司法文明协同创新中心;中国政法大学刑事司法学院;
【分类号】：D925.2
【参考文献】
相关期刊论文 前4条
1 方勇;南凌志;;建立以审判为中心的伪证规制机制——基于伪证罪适用的实证分析[J];人民司法;2015年21期
2 陈光中;;完善的辩护制度是国家民主法治发达的重要标志[J];中国法律评论;2015年02期
3 陈光中;于增尊;;严防冤案若干问题思考[J];法学家;2014年01期
4 许乃曼;茹艳红;;论刑事诉讼的北美模式[J];国家检察官学院学报;2008年05期
【共引文献】
相关期刊论文 前10条
1 陈韵;;都市类报纸冤案报道中的内容缺位——以三起冤案事件为例[J];视听;2017年07期
2 陈光中;郑曦;谢丽珍;;完善证人出庭制度的若干问题探析——基于实证试点和调研的研究[J];政法论坛;2017年04期
3 段冉;;论审判中心主义下刑事错案的多元防范机制[J];智富时代;2017年06期
4 陈光中;李章仙;;论庭审模式与查明案件事实真相[J];法学杂志;2017年06期
5 李章仙;;刑事审辩关系:模式的异化与回归[J];学术交流;2017年04期
6 王\，
本文编号：2492618
本文链接：https://www.wllwen.com/falvlunwen/susongfa/2492618.html
