论我国刑事和解制度完善

发布时间：2018-02-15 12:04

本文关键词： 刑事和解刑事和解制度刑事和解制度模式　出处：《中央民族大学》2017年硕士论文　论文类型：学位论文

【摘要】：刑事和解是指在加害人与被害人自愿的基础上,以加害人认罪为前提,通过赔偿、道歉等方式取得被害人谅解并达成和解协议,司法机关根据案件的具体情况作出不再追究刑事责任或从轻、减轻刑事责任的诉讼活动。刑事和解制度指围绕刑事和解所展开的法律规范的总和。刑事和解是刑事和解制度的核心组成部分,二者具有区别。刑事和解制度已发展为世界性刑事运动,设置意义在于提高被害人权利保障、有助于加害人回归社会以及效率价值的实现。传统刑事和解制度模式分为社区调解模式、转处模式、替代模式、司法模式,该模式的划分已不符当代刑事和解制度发展趋势,笔者从价值取向以及和解主导者的角度提出新的划分方式,将刑事和解制度分为司法机关中立模式、司法机关主动模式、社会第三方调解模式,我国刑事和解制度属于司法机关中立模式。我国现行刑事和解制度规定粗陋存在诸多问题,刑事和解适用范围过窄,将重罪以及涉及到公共法益的部分轻罪排除在外,极大的缩减了适用范围;司法实践中和解方式单一,以赔偿物质损失为主并通常要求一次性赔付到位,常见的精神性抚慰仅是赔礼道歉,不足以应对不同加害人经济背景不一的实际,对受到不同程度心理创伤的被害人而言仅以加害人口头致歉无法重塑心理健康;刑事和解主持人规定粗陋,我国仅规定了刑事和解主持人的范围,对主持人如何选任、主持人在和解过程中具备何种职责还处于法律空白状;刑事和解协议能对是否追究刑事责任、量刑产生影响,刑事和解制度的监督尤为重要,只有完备的监督体系才能避免刑事和解制度异化为辩诉交易、以钱买刑,才能杜绝司法机关利用权力贪污贿赂、以权谋私的腐败现象,但我国关于刑事和解制度的法律规定粗陋,导致监督体系上出现断层。针对我国刑事和解制度出现的问题,应当按照现代司法观念设计内容,同时要摆脱传统司法观念的缺陷实现加害人、被害人、国家三者利益的平衡;在适用范围上适当扩张,应当允许部分重罪以及部分涉及公共利益的案件适用刑事和解;构建多元和解方式,探索劳务补偿、恢复原状、财产收益转移、代为抚养等赔偿方式的可行性,允许高额金钱赔偿分期赔付,重视被害人精神创伤的愈合;明确司法机关与第三方担任主持人的职责内容,为第三方担任主持人提供法律知识培训和调解技能培训;完善刑事和解制度监督体系,包括对被害方与加害方的监督以及对参与刑事和解运行过程的司法机关的监督,前者主要通过对刑事和解协议的审查来实现,后者主要通过发挥检察机关的监督职能来实现。
[Abstract]:Criminal reconciliation is to obtain the victim's understanding and reach a reconciliation agreement by means of compensation, apology and so on, on the basis of the voluntary consent of the perpetrator and the victim, taking the guilty plea of the offender as the premise, and by means of compensation, apology, and so on. The judicial organ, according to the specific circumstances of the case, decides not to pursue criminal responsibility or to reduce the criminal liability, Criminal reconciliation system refers to the summation of the legal norms surrounding criminal reconciliation. Criminal reconciliation is the core component of the criminal reconciliation system. The system of criminal reconciliation has developed into a worldwide criminal movement, the significance of which is to improve the protection of the rights of victims. The traditional criminal reconciliation system is divided into community mediation model, transfer model, alternative model, judicial model. The division of this model is not consistent with the development trend of contemporary criminal reconciliation system. From the perspective of value orientation and reconciliation leader, the author puts forward a new way to divide the criminal reconciliation system into the judicial neutral model, the judicial active mode, the social third party mediation mode. The criminal reconciliation system of our country belongs to the neutral mode of judicial organs. There are many problems in the provisions of the current criminal reconciliation system in our country. The scope of criminal reconciliation is too narrow, which excludes serious crimes and some minor crimes involving public interests of law. Greatly reduced the scope of application; judicial practice in the settlement of a single way, mainly to compensate for material losses and usually required a one-off payment in place, the common spiritual comfort is merely an apology, It is not enough to deal with the fact that different perpetrators have different economic backgrounds. For victims who have suffered different degrees of psychological trauma, it is not possible to rebuild their mental health by merely apologizing to the injured person; the host of criminal reconciliation has a crude stipulation. China has only stipulated the scope of the moderator of criminal reconciliation, how to elect the moderator, what kind of responsibilities the moderator has in the process of reconciliation is still in the legal blank; the criminal reconciliation agreement can have an impact on whether to investigate criminal responsibility and to determine the penalty. The supervision of the criminal reconciliation system is particularly important. Only a complete supervision system can avoid the alienation of the criminal reconciliation system into plea bargaining, buy punishment with money, and put an end to the corruption phenomenon of the judicial organs using power, corruption, bribery and abuse of power for personal gain. However, the legal provisions on the criminal reconciliation system in our country are crude, leading to a fault in the supervision system. In view of the problems in the criminal reconciliation system in our country, the contents should be designed according to the modern judicial concept. At the same time, to get rid of the defects of the traditional judicial concept to achieve the balance of the interests of perpetrators, victims and the state, to expand the scope of application, we should allow some serious crimes and some cases involving the public interest to apply criminal reconciliation; To construct multiple ways of reconciliation, to explore the feasibility of compensation methods, such as labor compensation, restitution, transfer of property income, raising on behalf of others, allowing high amount of money compensation to be paid in instalments, and paying attention to the healing of the trauma of the victims; Clarify the responsibility of judicial organs and third parties to act as moderators, provide legal knowledge training and mediation skills training for third parties as moderators, improve the supervision system of criminal reconciliation system, It includes the supervision of the victim and the aggrieved party, as well as the supervision of the judicial organs participating in the process of criminal reconciliation. The former is mainly realized through the examination of the criminal settlement agreement, and the latter is mainly realized by giving play to the supervisory function of the procuratorial organ.
【学位授予单位】：中央民族大学
【学位级别】：硕士
【学位授予年份】：2017
【分类号】：D925.2

【参考文献】