我国故意杀人案死刑适用中存在的突出问题及解决

发布时间：2018-04-24 07:28

本文选题：故意杀人 + 死刑适用　；参考：《湘潭大学》2014年硕士论文

【摘要】：在中国目前的宽严相济的刑事政策下,故意杀人罪死刑的限制适用显得尤为重要,对于我国刑事案件中死刑适用数量的实质降低具有十分重要的意义。从现有的故意杀人案看,死刑适用过程中存在着多方面的问题,包括实体上的问题和程序上的问题。在实体上存在的问题主要体现为故意杀人案死刑适用标准模糊,法官自由裁量空间过大,同时法官将民意、民愤等作为判处死刑的依据,且在具体的死刑适用上法律执行不统一。在程序上存在的问题主要体现在未能充分保障犯罪嫌疑人或被告人的诉讼权利,某些案件证据未达到适用死刑标准却判处了死刑,没有充分利用非法证据排除规则进行死刑适用,没有适用严格的证明责任标准适用死刑,证明责任分配不明晰等。产生这些问题的原因主要有：1、实体上的原因：立法不够科学、死刑适用标准不够具体；未严格遵循法官判案只尊重事实和法律；司法工作人员素质参差不齐。2、程序上的原因：刑讯逼供禁而不绝,非法证据排除规则入律太晚；过分追求司法效率,未严格保证判案质量；对证明责任分配在刑事证明责任中的重要性认识不到位。针对这些原因,我们应当从以下几个方面来解决：1、实体上的对策：科学立法,重新确定明晰的死刑适用标准；正确对待民意民愤,严格实行司法独立；不断提高司法工作人员专业素养和政治素养。2、程序上的对策：运用非法证据排除规则实现“重物证轻口供重辩护”；运用严格的证明标准限制故意杀人案件中死刑的适用；运用明晰的证明责任分配限制故意杀人案件中死刑的适用。
[Abstract]:Under China's current criminal policy of combining leniency and severity, the restriction of the death penalty for intentional homicide is particularly important, which is of great significance to the substantial reduction of the number of death penalty in criminal cases in our country. From the current intentional homicide cases, there are many problems in the application of death penalty, including substantive problems and procedural problems. The main problems in the entity are that the standard of death penalty in intentional homicide cases is vague, the discretion of judges is too large, and the judges regard public opinion, public anger and so on as the basis for sentencing the death penalty. And in the specific application of the death penalty in the implementation of the law is not uniform. The procedural problems are mainly reflected in the failure to fully protect the rights of criminal suspects or defendants. In some cases, the evidence does not meet the standards of the application of the death penalty, but the death penalty is imposed. The exclusion rule of illegal evidence is not fully used to apply the death penalty, the strict standard of burden of proof is not applied, and the distribution of burden of proof is not clear. The main causes of these problems are: 1, substantive reasons: the legislation is not scientific enough, the standard of application of death penalty is not specific, the judge does not strictly abide by the facts and the law; The quality of judicial staff is not uniform. 2. The procedural reasons are as follows: extorting confessions by torture, excluding illegal evidence and entering the law too late, pursuing excessive judicial efficiency and not strictly guaranteeing the quality of adjudication; The importance of the distribution of burden of proof in the criminal burden of proof is not in place. In view of these reasons, we should solve the countermeasures from the following aspects: scientific legislation, redetermination of clear standards for the application of the death penalty, correct treatment of public indignation and strict implementation of judicial independence; To improve the professional quality and political accomplishment of judicial staff continuously. 2. The countermeasures of procedure are as follows: using the rule of illegal evidence exclusion to realize "paying more attention to material evidence than confession to defense", applying strict standard of proof to restrict the application of death penalty in cases of intentional homicide; The use of clear burden of proof distribution limits the application of the death penalty in intentional homicide cases.
【学位授予单位】：湘潭大学
【学位级别】：硕士
【学位授予年份】：2014
【分类号】：D924.3

【相似文献】