论庭审实质化实现路径

发布时间：2018-01-11 16:22

本文关键词：论庭审实质化实现路径　出处：《吉林大学》2017年硕士论文　论文类型：学位论文

【摘要】：十八届四中全会提出"推进以审判为中心的诉讼制度改革",坚持庭审应当在刑事诉讼中起到决定性的作用,对于被告人的定罪量刑问题都应当在庭审中解决,侦查、提起公诉等审前程序应当符合庭审的要求。受公检法三机关之间"分工负责、互相配合、互相制约"原则的影响,我国刑事诉讼现实中"公检法三机关之间"配合过多、制约不足"呈现出以侦查为中心"流水线"的诉讼模式,"公安是做饭的、检察机关是端饭的、法院是吃饭的"等公安绑架法院的现象时有发生。"以审判为中心"是针对"侦查中心主义"提出的具有理论与实践双重意义的命题。而庭审实质化是审判中心主义的题中之意。庭审实质化是针对目前我国庭审虚化的现状提出的要求。受侦查中心主义的影响,在目前很多的司法审判中,法官对于案件事实的认定主要是通过检察机关移送的案卷笔录,证人、鉴定人几乎不出庭。对于很多案件法官不是根据自己的心证做出判断,而是通过上级主管院长或者庭长的行政化审批活动完成。无论是案卷笔录中心主义亦或是行政化的审批方式都不具备庭审应有的控辩两造对抗、法官居中裁判的等腰三角形构造,都违反了司法应有的审判规律,都破坏了庭审应当具备的公正程序以及证据规则。通过庭审实质化推进审判方式的变革,从而完善司法管理体制以及司法权力运行机制十分必要。针对目前突出的庭审形式化的问题,根本原因在于案卷笔录中心主义以及庭审证明过程的形式化,没有贯彻证据裁判原则。受案件笔录中心主义的影响,法官的心证多数不是依据庭审证明过程而是依靠庭外阅读卷宗形成的,主要表现在以下几个方面:首先,没有严格控制证据的证据能力,非法证据排除规则流于形式。在庭审中法官对于证人证言以及鉴定意见等推定其具有天然的可采性对于证据的合法性几乎不进行审查,"带病"证据、瑕疵证据可以畅通无阻的进入法庭,缺乏对于证据能力的控制长此以往符合逻辑经验和认识规律的严格证明的证明观很难建立起来。其次,庭审证明过程虚化。审判一个重要特点是亲历性,证人、鉴定人出庭保障法官可以直接接触证据,而在目前很多庭审过程中证人、鉴定人不出庭几乎成了我国司法实践中的常态,出庭反而成了例外。在这种背景下被追诉方无法展开有效质证,不仅导致一审法院开庭审理过程走过场而且造成现代刑事证据规则难以建立和实施。最后,证明标准虚置。由于前述对于证据能力的不审查、证明过程的形式化使得我国法律确立的"案件事实清楚,证据确实、充分,排除合理怀疑"的证明标准无法实现,法官无法乃至不敢基于自己心证作出疑罪从无的判决。贯彻证据裁判原则,实现庭审实质化应当完善以下几个方面:首先,规范证据能力与证明力,完善证据规则体系。在我国立法过程中对于证据偏重于对证据的证明力的规范而对于证据的证据能力缺乏应有的重视。非法证据排除规则在实施的过程中存在问题,由此造成的后果便是不具备证据能力的证据进入法庭。所以法官在庭审过程中应当加强对于证据的合法性的审查,对于侦查机关出具的在本质上属于传闻证据的证据应当要求证人、鉴定人等出庭接受法庭调查保证证据的证据能力。面对证人、鉴定人等不出庭无法保障辩方的质证权的情况,立法上应当对于证人证言的证据能力进行相应的限制。法庭审判应当是控辩裁三方等腰三角形的构造,缺少任何一方的庭审都是不完整。而被告人由于身陷囹圄以及专业知识等方面的限制无法与控方展开平等对抗,因而辩护律师的作用更加重要,加强法律援助辩护,促进控辩平等对抗,法官在全面了解案件证据与事实的基础上形成内心确信。其次,充实证据的调查程序,完善举证、质证以及认证过程。庭审虚化的重要表现是证明过程的形式化,庭审中证据调查过程粗糙等问题愈发突出,因而加强法庭调查过程,控辩双方对证据的证据能力以及证明力展开充分辩论,保障法官心证形成于庭审对事实证据的认定而不是庭后的阅卷活动。最后,严格把握证明标准,切实排除合理怀疑。2012年《刑事诉讼法》在"案件事实清楚,证据确实、充分"的基础上引入了"排除合理怀疑"的表述,要求审判人员不仅仅应当满足于案件表面证据之间的相互印证更要进行内心确信,对自己进行追问是否基于自己的审判经验和逻辑准则形成内心确信。合理把握证明标准主客观之间的关系,面对有限的司法资源对于无法排除的合理怀疑,审判人员应当作出疑罪从无的判决,从而真正实现庭审惩罚犯罪、保障人权的目的。
[Abstract]:In the fourth Plenary Session of the 18th CPC Central Committee proposed to promote the trial centered litigation system reform, adhere to the "trial should play a decisive role in the criminal procedure, the defendant's conviction and sentencing issues should be resolved in the trial, investigation, prosecution and other procedures before trial shall be filed with the court." by the three public security organs responsible for the division of labor and cooperate with each other, mutual restraint "principle of criminal procedure in reality" between the three public security organs with too many control problems, "which shows the investigation center line" litigation mode, "public security is cooking, the procuratorial organ is the end of the meal, the court is the court for" kidnapping of public security such phenomena have occurred. "The trial centered" to "Investigation Centered" has the theoretical and practical significance of the proposition. But the essence of the trial is a trial centered in the meaning of the title trial. The essence is put forward according to the present situation of the virtual trial. Affected by the investigation center, at present a lot of judicial trial, the judge found that the facts of the case is mainly through the procuratorial organ of the court records, witnesses, appraisers almost does not appear. In many cases the judge not according to their own heart certificate of judgment, but completed by the president or the president of the superior administrative examination and approval activities. Whether filesrecord centralism or administrative approval mode does not have the trial due the two isosceles triangle structure against the impartial judges, in violation of the rules of judicial trial, the trial shall destroy the fair procedures and rules of evidence. Promote the trial reform through the essence of the trial, in order to improve the management system of justice and judicial power operation machine System is very necessary. In view of the current outstanding trial formal problems, the fundamental reason is that filesrecord centralism and the trial proof form, does not implement the principle of evidence referee. Affected by the case record centralism, most of the judge not according to trial proof but on the court read file form, mainly in the following aspects: first, the ability of evidence there is no strict control of evidence, the exclusionary rule of illegal evidence of a mere formality. The trial judge for the testimony of witnesses and expert opinions and other presumed natural admissibility for the legality of the evidence almost without review, "sick" evidence of defective evidence can smoothly enter the court. For lack of evidence ability, logical control if things go on like this experience and understanding of the law strictly proved that view is difficult to set up. Secondly, the court The process of grammaticalization. The trial is an important feature of trial experience, witnesses, expert witnesses judges can directly contact the evidence, and in many of the current trial process in the witness, appraiser does not appear almost become the norm in the judicial practice of our country, but to be the exception. In this context the accused party unable to launch effective cross examination, not only led to a trial court hearing process as a mere formality but also caused the modern rules of criminal evidence is difficult to establish and implement. Finally, the standard of proof for the empty set. Due to the aforementioned evidence ability not to review the process of proving the form of the law of our country established "the case facts are clear, the evidence is reliable and sufficient. The reasonable doubt standard" can not be achieved, the judge can not and dare not own heart card based on the suspected crime from judgment. Carry out the principle of evidentiary adjudication, realize the essence of the trial should be improved The following aspects: first, the standard of evidence ability and the certificate strength, improve the evidence system. In the process of China's legislation on the evidence of proof standard for the competence of evidence the lack of due attention. Illegal evidence exclusion problems in the process of implementing rules, the result is not have the evidence ability evidence into court. So the judge should strengthen the legality of evidence review during the trial, the investigation authorities issued to hearsay evidence in essence of evidence should be required to witness, appraiser to appear in court to accept the court investigation to ensure the competence of evidence. In the face of witnesses, expert witnesses do not appear in court to to protect the rights of confrontation with the defense situation, legislation should be appropriate restrictions on capacity of evidence witness testimony. The court trial should be cut the three party three angle isosceles The shape of the structure, the lack of any party to the trial is not complete. The defendant due to jail and the professional knowledge and other aspects of the limitation and the expansion of equal confrontation, the more important the role of lawyers and legal aid, strengthen defense, promote equal adversary, the judge in the heart that form the basis of a comprehensive understanding of evidence and facts the case. Secondly, enrich the investigation procedure, the improvement of the evidence burden of proof, cross examination and authentication process. An important trial virtual is the process of proving the formal trial evidence in the investigation process, the roughness is more and more prominent, thus strengthening the court investigation process, both sides of the ability to evidence and probative full debate judges, evidence form of trial of fact evidence rather than court marking activities. Finally, strictly grasp the standard of proof, and exclude reasonable doubt.2 012 years of "Criminal Procedure Law" in the "facts are clear, the evidence is sufficient," introduced "beyond reasonable doubt" expressions, confirm each other for trial personnel should not only be satisfied with the case evidence should be carried on the surface of the inner conviction, for themselves to ask whether their trial experience and logic based on the principle of convinced. Reasonable understanding of the standard of proof of concept between the subject and object relations, in the face of limited judicial resources for reasonable doubt cannot be ruled out, the judges shall make a guilty verdict, so as to realize the punishment of crime, the protection of human rights.

【学位授予单位】：吉林大学
【学位级别】：硕士
【学位授予年份】：2017
【分类号】：D925.2

【相似文献】