死刑复核程序研究

发布时间：2018-04-27 20:30

本文选题：死刑复核程序 + 人权　；参考：《吉林大学》2016年博士论文

【摘要】：死刑即生命刑,是剥夺犯罪人生命的残酷刑罚,所以在刑罚史上,死刑问题一直备受关注。死刑存废问题的争论,在我国理论界与司法界已基本达成共识,废除死刑在我国还有相当长的一段路要走。但限制死刑适用,确保死刑案件公正处理却一直是刑事实体法和刑事程序法所共同追求的目标。所以对死刑复核程序研究,自然成为刑事诉讼研究的核心之一。基于人权保护的理念,世界上保留死刑的国家对死刑案件的处理,都持有相当审慎的态度,设置了极其严格的程序保障措施。在我国,对死刑案件在二审终审制外又设立了特殊诉讼程序——死刑复核程序,即由最高人民法院对判处死刑的案件进行审查核准的一道特殊刑事诉讼程序。其作用就是为被告人提供再多一次的法律救济机会,充分体现程序正义的要求,能够更加严格、审慎地适用死刑这一最严厉的刑罚,确保死刑案件得到公正处理。死刑复核是我国一项历史悠久的法律制度。它源于汉朝、定于隋唐、成熟于明清,前后历经二千余年。新中国成立以后,在诉讼制度中该项程序得以保留。在建国后的法治建设中,死刑复核权的最终归属也是几经辗转,往返流转于最高人民法院与高级人民法院之间。2007年1月1日,最高人民法院正式收回了下放二十多年的死刑复核权,这是我国刑事司法制度上的一次重大进步。2012年3月14日,全国人大第五次会议又通过了对《刑事诉讼法》的修订,在第三编第四章单独规定了死刑复核程序,用了六条对该程序进行原则性规定。经过8年多的司法实践,最高人民法院通过死刑复核程序对死刑案件进行核准,对保障死刑案件的质量、统一死刑适用标准、保障人权等发挥了重要作用。但是,由于只有六条的原则规定,对于探究死刑复核程序的内涵是远远不够的。该项制度从启动到最终判决的各个阶段,设计还不尽合理。这与没有真正认清死刑复核程序相对于其他刑事诉讼程序具有显著的学术特征和独有的理论品格有关。因此,对我国死刑复核程序重新审视和完善,可以推动死刑相关制度乃至整个刑事诉讼制度的发展,以及对保障人权等都具有非常重大的意义。本文分为绪论和正文两个部分。绪论中,依次介绍了选题背景和研究意义、文献的研究热点分布和前沿方向、论文主要观点和创新内容以及论文所采用的主要研究方法。正文分五个章节,从三方面对死刑复核程序进行了相关研究。首先,回顾了我国死刑复核权的变迁历程并对变迁原因进行分析,对域外死刑救济程序进行考察,为我国死刑复核程序的完善提供思路。对死刑复核程序的基础问题进行了理论探讨,对死刑复核程序的人权保障以及公正与效率方面的价值进行研究,从宪政的理念强调死刑复核程序在保障人权方面的重要性。明确了在普通刑事案件的审理中,公正与效率价值是并重的,但死刑复核程序的设计则更多的体现了对公正的追求,更加侧重公正价值的体现。死刑复核程序是对死刑复核权的程序设计,所以本文对死刑复核权的基本属性也展开了讨论,在厘清死刑复核权性质的基础上,又分析了死刑复核程序结构(控辩审三方的地位、关系)的问题。通过对死刑复核程序性质及结构的分析可以得知:只有在控辩审三方面地位予以明确、将审判权置于法律监督之下的完整诉讼构造,才能真正实现死刑复核程序保护人权等方面的独特价值,实现其公平正义、权力制约、保护法益的功能。虽然,我国死刑复核程序经过较长时间的发展,但在控辩审三方面的权力与关系划分上仍存在很多问题,所以,在第三章笔者对我国现行死刑复核程序的现状进行研究,提出死刑复核程序中存在的主要焦点问题。在审判环节中,法院在审判理念、死刑复核案件的启动和管辖、合议庭人数的规定,以及审理期限缺失等方面都有不足;检察机关对死刑复核案件缺少法律监督;辩护权的行使还存在障碍等;分析了舆论关注和被害人的意愿对我国死刑复核产生的影响。在第四章与前面所提问题相对应,笔者提出了如何完善审判权、检察权、辩护权的具体思路和设想。应立足于司法实践,对我国死刑复核程序进行诉讼化改造,为今后建立死刑案件的三审终审制度奠定基础。相信这些设想的提出,能够有助于死刑复核程序的立法完善,实现死刑复核程序从形式理性向价值理性的转变。应采取根据不同案件的情况,采取不同的程序的完善路径。第一,被告人对案件认定事实、证据采信以及法律适用上没有异议,检察机关也没有提出抗诉的案件,法院经审查也认为不存在实体错误和程序违法等情况的,适用书面阅卷审理方式。主要把握死刑政策与统一适用问题。但是在复核过程中,法官必须提审被告人,辩护律师应当提出意见,对于辩护律师的意见法官必须倾听并入卷,检察机关应当提出意见,且最终的裁判结果必须送达最高人民检察院。第二,被告人或检察机关对案件事实认定、证据采信、法律适用等有异议,则应采取开庭审理的程序,将控辩审三方均纳入到死刑复核庭审中来,三方共同参与、控辩双方充分发表意见,最后由最高人民法院裁判。与庭审程序改革相适应,还要加强检察机关的法律监督地位,完善监督的方式与方法。同时还要通过立法保障被告人、辩护律师的辩护权以及被害人适时发表意见的权利。这种有条件的开庭制度,在我国现阶能够节约诉讼资源,在保证诉讼效率的前提下,实现死刑复核的程序公正和保护人权。最后,笔者对我国死刑复核程序予以展望:随着死刑案件的减少,司法资源的扩充,在适当时机,我国应建立死刑案件的三审终审制,体现公开审判这一基本的刑事诉讼原则,维护程序的正当性。正如罗宾·马赫所言:我们的挑战,是为一个制度性的改变而奋斗,保证那些面临死刑的人能够通过正当的程序,公平而平等地获得正义。在死刑案件的三审程序中,应由检察机关抗诉或被告人上诉作为程序启动的开始;对检察机关与被告人均未提出抗诉或上诉的案件,以“强制上诉”作为例外,由高级人民法院报请至最高人民法院,通过这种启动方式维护司法被动性原则与审判的中立地位。在审理时,应采用全面开庭程序,庭审由控辩双方各自举证、质证,法院居中裁判。法院审理案件采取定罪与量刑分开的审理模式,对于定罪无疑异的案件,庭审的重点在于死刑是否适用问题。配合定罪与量刑分开的庭审方式,建立死刑复核案件的社区调查制度。死刑案件的社会调查报告,其设置目的是为审理死刑案件的法官提供死刑裁量的参考和素材,让法官全面了解被告人的各方面情况进而判断其社会危害性和人身危险性。对重大复杂案件,建立专家听证制度,由专家、学者帮助解决理论上的疑难问题,增加判决权威性。同时对舆论关注的案件也可以适用听证程序,增加案件审理的透明度,消除社会各界对案件的猜测,使死刑案件三审终审制实质化,提高审判公信力。
[Abstract]:Death penalty, life punishment, is a cruel penalty to deprive the offender's life, so the question of death penalty has been paid much attention in the history of punishment. The debate on the issue of death penalty has basically reached consensus between the theory and the judiciary in our country, and the abolition of death penalty has a long way to go in our country. However, the application of the death penalty to ensure the fair treatment of the death penalty cases. It has always been the goal of the criminal substantive law and the criminal procedure law. Therefore, the study of the procedure for the review of the death penalty is one of the core of the criminal procedure research. Based on the concept of human rights protection, the country with the death penalty in the world has a very prudent attitude to the handling of the death penalty cases, and has set a very strict procedural protection. In our country, in China, the death penalty case in the second instance of the final trial system has been set up a special procedure - the death penalty review procedure, that is, a special criminal procedure which is approved by the Supreme People's court for the death penalty cases. Its role is to provide the defendant with a number of legal remedies, fully embodying the procedure. The request of righteousness, can be more strict, carefully apply the death penalty this most severe penalty, ensure the death penalty case get the fair treatment. The death penalty review is our country a long history legal system. It originated in the Han Dynasty, the Sui and Tang Dynasties, mature in Ming and Qing Dynasty, after more than two thousand years. After the founding of new China, the procedure was allowed in the litigation system. In the construction of the rule of law after the founding of the people's Republic of China, the final attribution of the death penalty review right is also a few passes, the return of the Supreme People's court and the high people's court in January 1st of.2007, the Supreme People's court officially reclaimed the death penalty review right for more than 20 years, which is a major progress in the criminal justice system of our country.2012 year 3. On 14 July, the fifth meeting of the National People's Congress passed the revision of the criminal procedure law. In the fourth chapter of the third edition, the death penalty review procedure was separately stipulated, and six principles were used in the procedure. After more than 8 years of judicial practice, the Supreme People's court approved the death penalty case through the death penalty review process, and ensured the death penalty case. The quality, the standard of applying the death penalty and the protection of human rights have played an important role. However, because there are only six principles, it is far from enough to explore the connotation of the procedure for the review of the death penalty. The system is not reasonably designed from the start to the final judgment. His criminal procedure has significant academic characteristics and unique theoretical character. Therefore, the reexamination and improvement of the procedure for the review of death penalty in China can promote the development of the death penalty related system and the whole criminal procedure system, as well as the protection of human rights. This paper is divided into two parts: Introduction and text. In the introduction, the background and significance of the topic are introduced in turn, the focus distribution and the forward direction of the literature, the main points of the paper, the innovation content and the main research methods used in the paper. The text is divided into five chapters, and the related research on the review procedure of death penalty is carried out from three aspects. First, it reviews the change calendar of the death penalty review right in China. The analysis of the reasons for the change and the investigation of the extraterritorial death penalty relief program provides a way of thinking for the improvement of the procedure for the review of death penalty in China. The theoretical discussion is made on the basic issues of the procedure for the review of the death penalty, the protection of human rights and the value of justice and efficiency in the procedure of the review of the death penalty, and the emphasis on the death penalty from the idea of constitutional government. The importance of the nuclear program in the protection of human rights. It is clear that in the trial of ordinary criminal cases, the value of justice and efficiency is equal, but the design of the death penalty review procedure is more embodied in the pursuit of justice and more impartial value. The death penalty review procedure is the procedure of the rechecking of the death penalty, so this article is dead. The basic attribute of the right to review the sentence has also been discussed. On the basis of clarifying the nature of the death penalty review right, it also analyzes the problem of the structure of the death penalty review procedure (the status and the relationship between the three parties and the defense and the defense). Through the analysis of the nature and structure of the procedure for the review of the death penalty, it can be found that only in the three aspects of the accusation and trial, the judicial power is placed in the law. The complete litigation structure under the supervision of law can truly realize the unique value of the death penalty review procedure to protect human rights, realize its fair and justice, the power restriction, and protect the function of the legal interest. Although the procedure for the review of death penalty has been developed for a long time, there are still many problems in the division of power and relations between the three aspects of the accusation and trial. Therefore, in the third chapter, the author studies the current status of the current procedure for the review of the death penalty in China, and puts forward the main focus of the procedure for the review of the death penalty. In the trial link, the court has shortcomings in the trial concept, the start and jurisdiction of the death penalty review case, the number of the collegial panels, and the absence of the trial period. The case of death penalty review is lack of legal supervision and the exercise of the right of defense has obstacles, and the influence of the public opinion and the will of the victim on the review of the death penalty in China is analyzed. In the fourth chapter, the author puts forward the concrete ideas and ideas on how to perfect the judicial power, the procuratorial power and the right to defend. In order to establish the basis for the establishment of the three final trial system for the death penalty case, it is believed that these proposals will help to improve the legislation of the procedure for the review of death penalty, and to realize the transformation of the procedure for the review of death penalty from form reason to value rationality. First, the defendant has no objection to the facts of the case, the evidence collection and the application of the law. The procuratorial organ has not put forward the case of protest, and the court has also considered that there are no substantive errors and illegal procedures. Question. But in the process of reviewing, the judge must try the accused, the defense lawyer should put forward his opinion, the judge must listen to the incorporation, the procuratorial organ should put forward the opinion, and the final result must be sent to the Supreme People's Procuratorate. Second, the defendant or the procuratorial organ affirms the case facts and evidence. When there is objection to the acceptance of the letter and the application of the law, the procedure of hearing the trial shall be taken, and the three parties shall be included in the trial of the death penalty review, the three parties participate together, the two parties will fully express their opinions, and finally the judges of the Supreme People's court will be judged. The legal supervision status of the procuratorial organs should be strengthened and the supervision should be improved. At the same time, we should guarantee the defendant, the right to defend the defense lawyer and the right of the victim to express the opinion in a timely manner. This conditional opening system can save the litigation resources and realize the procedure justice and the protection of human rights under the premise of guaranteeing the efficiency of the lawsuit. Finally, the author is to our country. The procedure of the review of the death penalty is expected: with the reduction of death penalty cases and the expansion of judicial resources, in the appropriate time, China should establish the final three trial system of the death penalty case, reflecting the basic criminal procedure principle of public trial and maintaining the legitimacy of the procedure. As Robin Maher said, our challenge is to be excited for a institutional change. Fight to ensure that those who face the death penalty can obtain justice fairly and equally through proper procedures. In the three trial procedure of the death penalty case, the prosecution or defendant appeals should be initiated at the start of the procedure; the cases of no protest or appeal to the procuratorial organs and the defendants, with the exception of "compulsory appeal", are taken as an exception. The high people's court has reported to the Supreme People's court to maintain the passive principle of judicature and the neutrality of the trial by this way of starting. In the trial, the court should adopt a comprehensive trial procedure. The trial shall be given by both the prosecution and the prosecution, the quality of the court and the court in the court. In case of doubt, the key point of the trial lies in the application of the death penalty. The community investigation system of the death penalty review case is set up with the trial mode separated by the conviction and the sentencing. The social investigation report of the death penalty case is set up to provide the judge for the death penalty for the judges of the death penalty case and the judge to understand the defendant in an all-round way. To judge the social harmfulness and the personal danger of all aspects of the person, the expert hearing system is established for the major complex cases, the experts and the scholars help to solve the difficult problems in the theory and increase the authority of the judgment. At the same time, the hearing procedure can be applied to the cases concerned with public opinion, and the transparency of the case trial can be increased and the social circles are eliminated. The speculation of the case will make the three instance final system of the death penalty substantive and improve the credibility of the trial.

【学位授予单位】：吉林大学
【学位级别】：博士
【学位授予年份】：2016
【分类号】：D925.2

【参考文献】