我国撤回公诉制度研究

Study on the System of Withdrawal of Public Prosecution in China

传播影响力
本库下载频次:
本库浏览频次:
CNKI下载频次:0

归属院系:

法学院

作者:

赵静

导师:

冯涛

学位:

硕士

语种:

中文

关键词:

撤回公诉;正当性;完善

摘要:

刑事诉讼的进程是一个具有不可知性和多变性的动态过程,由于受到主客观因素的影响,案件事实会发生变化,人们对案件事实的认识也会发生变化。在司法实践中,检察机关在提起公诉后发现案件有错误而主动行使公诉变更权是常见的现象。作为公诉变更制度的重要组成部分,撤回公诉制度的设立是传统诉讼理论上的一种进步,它体现了现代公诉权的裁量性和主动性,对检察机关与审判机关的职权配置与相互关系会产生较大的影响,对诉讼公正和效率有着重要的意义,同时也会对当事人的合法权益产生重大影响。鉴于这一制度的存在有着深厚的理论基础和实践需求,世界上多数国家和地区的刑事诉讼法中都对其有着明确的规定,在立法上赋予了检察机关撤回公诉权。在我国,《刑事诉讼法》在1996年修改后废除了关于撤回公诉制度的规定,但是,最高人民法院和最高人民检察院随后又以司法解释的形式对这一制度作出了略显粗略的规定,这些规定的存在使司法权有超越立法权的嫌疑,更为严重的是,由于其规定的笼统和不尽合理,导致了检察机关撤回公诉权的运行在实践中出现了许多问题,造成了撤回公诉权的滥用,撤回公诉中当事人的合法权益得不到保障的现象时有发生,使司法公信力大大降低,检察机关和审判机关的权威形象受到了很大的损害。本文按照提出问题、分析问题、解决问题的思路探讨了撤回公诉制度在我国存在的问题和原因,并对这一制度存在的正当性进行了分析,最后对如何完善撤回公诉制度提出了粗浅的设想,以期使之朝着法制化和规范化的方向得到较为合理的完善。 本文主要分为三大部分: 第一部分对我国的撤回公诉制度进行了审视和检讨,分析了这一制度的立法现状,并提出了这一制度在实践中存在的五个方面的主要问题,即撤回公诉的时间不合理、事由没有统一的标准、法律文书不规范、对无罪判决的规避导致撤回公诉有滥用之嫌以及撤回公诉的后续处理程序混乱和司法救济不力;提出问题后,本文对引起这些问题的原因分别从诉讼理念上和制度层面上进行了剖析。 第二部分以“撤回公诉制度的存废之争”为切入点,对有关这一制度的质疑进行了评析,并且以其存在的法理基础(人权保障和诉讼公正理论、诉讼经济原则、控审分离原则、起诉便宜主义、检察官的客观义务)为根据,探讨了撤回公诉制度存在的正当性基础。 第三部分是文章的重点,笔者从三个大的方面提出了完善这一制度的构想,第一个方面是将这一制度纳入法律的规定,这是完善撤回公诉制度的前提;第二个方面主要是从程序的具体操作上来构思对这一制度的规范和完善,具体来说包括:撤回公诉的时间、事由的界定、监督制约机制的完善、后续程序和救济措施的规范;第三个方面是相关配套措施的完善。

学科:

诉讼法学

提交日期

2018-01-11

引用参考

赵静. 我国撤回公诉制度研究[D]. 西南政法大学,2010.

全文附件授权许可

知识共享许可协议-署名

  • dc.title
  • 我国撤回公诉制度研究
  • dc.title
  • Study on the System of Withdrawal of Public Prosecution in China
  • dc.contributor.schoolno
  • 20070301060629
  • dc.contributor.author
  • 赵静
  • dc.contributor.degree
  • 硕士
  • dc.contributor.degreeConferringInstitution
  • 西南政法大学
  • dc.identifier.year
  • 2010
  • dc.contributor.advisor
  • 冯涛
  • dc.language.iso
  • 中文
  • dc.subject
  • 撤回公诉;;正当性;;完善
  • dc.subject
  • Withdrawal of public prosecution;; Legitimacy;; Improve
  • dc.description.abstract
  • 刑事诉讼的进程是一个具有不可知性和多变性的动态过程,由于受到主客观因素的影响,案件事实会发生变化,人们对案件事实的认识也会发生变化。在司法实践中,检察机关在提起公诉后发现案件有错误而主动行使公诉变更权是常见的现象。作为公诉变更制度的重要组成部分,撤回公诉制度的设立是传统诉讼理论上的一种进步,它体现了现代公诉权的裁量性和主动性,对检察机关与审判机关的职权配置与相互关系会产生较大的影响,对诉讼公正和效率有着重要的意义,同时也会对当事人的合法权益产生重大影响。鉴于这一制度的存在有着深厚的理论基础和实践需求,世界上多数国家和地区的刑事诉讼法中都对其有着明确的规定,在立法上赋予了检察机关撤回公诉权。在我国,《刑事诉讼法》在1996年修改后废除了关于撤回公诉制度的规定,但是,最高人民法院和最高人民检察院随后又以司法解释的形式对这一制度作出了略显粗略的规定,这些规定的存在使司法权有超越立法权的嫌疑,更为严重的是,由于其规定的笼统和不尽合理,导致了检察机关撤回公诉权的运行在实践中出现了许多问题,造成了撤回公诉权的滥用,撤回公诉中当事人的合法权益得不到保障的现象时有发生,使司法公信力大大降低,检察机关和审判机关的权威形象受到了很大的损害。本文按照提出问题、分析问题、解决问题的思路探讨了撤回公诉制度在我国存在的问题和原因,并对这一制度存在的正当性进行了分析,最后对如何完善撤回公诉制度提出了粗浅的设想,以期使之朝着法制化和规范化的方向得到较为合理的完善。 本文主要分为三大部分: 第一部分对我国的撤回公诉制度进行了审视和检讨,分析了这一制度的立法现状,并提出了这一制度在实践中存在的五个方面的主要问题,即撤回公诉的时间不合理、事由没有统一的标准、法律文书不规范、对无罪判决的规避导致撤回公诉有滥用之嫌以及撤回公诉的后续处理程序混乱和司法救济不力;提出问题后,本文对引起这些问题的原因分别从诉讼理念上和制度层面上进行了剖析。 第二部分以“撤回公诉制度的存废之争”为切入点,对有关这一制度的质疑进行了评析,并且以其存在的法理基础(人权保障和诉讼公正理论、诉讼经济原则、控审分离原则、起诉便宜主义、检察官的客观义务)为根据,探讨了撤回公诉制度存在的正当性基础。 第三部分是文章的重点,笔者从三个大的方面提出了完善这一制度的构想,第一个方面是将这一制度纳入法律的规定,这是完善撤回公诉制度的前提;第二个方面主要是从程序的具体操作上来构思对这一制度的规范和完善,具体来说包括:撤回公诉的时间、事由的界定、监督制约机制的完善、后续程序和救济措施的规范;第三个方面是相关配套措施的完善。
  • dc.description.abstract
  • As a dynamic procedure ,the criminal procedure is incognizable and changeable.Due to subjective and objective factors,facts of the case will change,the knowledge of facts of the case will also change.In judicial practice,after the prosecution,the prosecutors often find that the accuse is wrong and need to be modified.As an important part of the changing prosecution system,the withdrawal of public prosecution system is a progressive of the traditional theory of proceeding law.It reflects the discretion and initiative of modern public prosecution right, and will have a greater impact on the relationship between the prosecution and the judicial , have a great significance on the litigation fairness and efficiency ,and will have a major impact on the legitimate rights and interests of the parties .In view of the existence of this system has a profound theoretical basis and practical needs, there are specific provisions for this system in most countries and regions in the world .In China, the Criminal Procedure Law revised in 1996, repealed the provisions on the withdrawal of public prosecution system.However, the Supreme People's Court and the Supreme People's Procuratorate, and then introduced slightly rough provisions in the form of judicial interpretations on the system. The existence of these provisions are beyond the suspects of the legislative jurisdiction .More seriously,because of its general and unreasonable provisions, there have been many problems in the running of the right of withdrawal of public prosecution in practice,and has caused the abuse of the right of public prosecution and lack of protection of the legitimate rights and interests of the parties.Therefore, the judicial credibility has been greatly reduced,the judicial authority has suffered great harm too.By means of asking questions, analyzing problems, to solve problems,this paper discusses the problems and reasons of the system of withdrawal of public prosecution in China .At the same time,this paper probes the legitimacy of the existence of this system .Finally,this paper puts forward the shallow idea of how to perfect this system ,with a view that making this system more perfect toward the direction of legalization and standardization . This paper is divided into three parts: The first part of this paper puts examining and reviewing on the system of withdrawal of public prosecution in china.It makes an analysis of the legislative status of the system,and proposes five key issues of the running of this system in practice,such as,the time is unreasonable, there is no uniform standard of its exclusions,the legal instruments are irregular,to avoid an acquittal led to the abuse of withdrawal of public prosecution and the follow-up procedure of withdrawal of prosecution is disorderedand the judicial remedies are ineffective;After raising these questions,this paper analyzes the reasons of these issues from two aspects of institution and litigation philosophy. The second part of this paper put the fight of retention or abolition of this system as as starting point,and carries out some assessments on questions related to this system.As a basis for its legitimacy,this paper discusses its legal basis,such as the theory of human rights protection and litigation justice, the doctrine of economic litigation , the doctrine of separation for the prosecution and the judicial , the doctrine of free evaluation of prosecution and the prosecutor's objectivity obligation. The third part is the focus of this paper,the author puts forward the idea of improving the system from three major aspects.The first aspect is making this system legislated,which is the basis of the system improvement.The second aspect is specifying some procedural measures which include time and cases of this system ,and how to improve its supervision mechanism as well as follow-up procedures and remedies.Finally,the author puts forward two supporting measures for this system.
  • dc.subject.discipline
  • D925.2
  • dc.date.issued
  • 2010-03-20
回到顶部