我国台湾地区协商程序研究

On the Plea Bargaining Procedure in Taiwan Area of 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:

王丰

摘要:

为了解决刑事案件数量过多的沉重压力,世界各国均设计了简易诉讼程序或者采用认罪协商制度,英美法系国家如此,即便是传统的大陆法系国家,亦吸收了美国辩诉交易制度的精神,发展出了不同类型的协商模式。我国台湾地区刑事诉讼改革,在1999年“全国司法改革会议”后确立了“改良式当事人主义”的改革方向。在改良式当事人主义的主导下,创造性的引入了协商程序。协商程序引入后,与其他配套改革措施一道发挥了提高诉讼效率的功能,取得了一定改革成果。但是,也存在着立法本身的漏洞以及立法与实务相脱节的问题。本文旨在对我国台湾地区协商程序立法及司法实务经验研究的基础上对于当前大陆地区认罪认罚从宽制度改革能够提出一些有价值的建议。本文除引言、结语、参考文献、致谢外,共有三部分。第一部分从概念与特点、立法背景及价值的角度对我国台湾地区协商程序的内涵以及界限进行考察。第二部分根据其立法文本对我国台湾地区协商程序的内容进行介绍。根据我国台湾地区刑事诉讼法规定,协商程序主要体现了以下特点:协商程序仅为量刑协商、非重罪协商、公诉案件协商、法官不得参与协商、可以协商的内容具有局限性、对被告人的权利进行特别保护、实行部分强制辩护、被害人意见是协商程序的重要条件、原则上限制上诉、上诉审为事后审与法律审。第三部分在肯定其取得一定改革成果的基础上,对立法及司法实务中出现的问题进行评价,认为我国台湾地区协商程序案件适用范围窄;适用阶段不明确;法院角色不明确;被害人意见效力不明确;认罪与协商关系不明确;应当适用全面强制辩护制度;上诉制度需完善;协商程序与其他简易诉讼程序关系混乱。最后,基于我国台湾地区协商程序立法及实务经验的角度,对当前大陆地区认罪认罚从宽制度改革提出几点建议:1.扩大认罪认罚从宽制度的适用范围至全部公诉案件;2.在侦查阶段排除认罪认罚从宽制度的适用;3.明确法院在认罪认罚从宽制度中的工作重心为审查被告人认罪认罚的真实性和自愿性;4.认罪认罚从宽制度应当以适用全面强制辩护制度为改革方向;5.应当明确征求被害人意见的程序,但被害人是否同意并非认罪认罚从宽制度适用的前提条件;6.对于适用认罪认罚从宽制度的案件应当原则上禁止上诉,明确可以上诉的例外;7.明确认罪认罚从宽制度与简易程序、速裁程序的关系。

语种:

中文

学科:

诉讼法学

提交日期

2018-06-14

引用参考

王丰. 我国台湾地区协商程序研究[D]. 西南政法大学,2017.

全文附件授权许可

知识共享许可协议-署名

  • dc.title
  • 我国台湾地区协商程序研究
  • dc.title
  • On the Plea Bargaining Procedure in Taiwan Area of China
  • dc.contributor.schoolno
  • 20140301060373
  • dc.contributor.author
  • 王丰
  • dc.contributor.affiliation
  • 法学院
  • dc.contributor.degree
  • 硕士
  • dc.contributor.childdegree
  • 法学硕士
  • dc.contributor.degreeConferringInstitution
  • 西南政法大学
  • dc.identifier.year
  • 2017
  • dc.contributor.advisor
  • 原立荣
  • dc.contributor.advisorAffiliation
  • 法学院
  • dc.language.iso
  • 中文
  • dc.subject
  • 台湾地区;协商程序;认罪认罚从宽制度;启示
  • dc.subject
  • Taiwan Area of China;Plea Bargaining;Enlightenment;The System of Leniency based on Peccavi
  • dc.description.abstract
  • 为了解决刑事案件数量过多的沉重压力,世界各国均设计了简易诉讼程序或者采用认罪协商制度,英美法系国家如此,即便是传统的大陆法系国家,亦吸收了美国辩诉交易制度的精神,发展出了不同类型的协商模式。我国台湾地区刑事诉讼改革,在1999年“全国司法改革会议”后确立了“改良式当事人主义”的改革方向。在改良式当事人主义的主导下,创造性的引入了协商程序。协商程序引入后,与其他配套改革措施一道发挥了提高诉讼效率的功能,取得了一定改革成果。但是,也存在着立法本身的漏洞以及立法与实务相脱节的问题。本文旨在对我国台湾地区协商程序立法及司法实务经验研究的基础上对于当前大陆地区认罪认罚从宽制度改革能够提出一些有价值的建议。本文除引言、结语、参考文献、致谢外,共有三部分。第一部分从概念与特点、立法背景及价值的角度对我国台湾地区协商程序的内涵以及界限进行考察。第二部分根据其立法文本对我国台湾地区协商程序的内容进行介绍。根据我国台湾地区刑事诉讼法规定,协商程序主要体现了以下特点:协商程序仅为量刑协商、非重罪协商、公诉案件协商、法官不得参与协商、可以协商的内容具有局限性、对被告人的权利进行特别保护、实行部分强制辩护、被害人意见是协商程序的重要条件、原则上限制上诉、上诉审为事后审与法律审。第三部分在肯定其取得一定改革成果的基础上,对立法及司法实务中出现的问题进行评价,认为我国台湾地区协商程序案件适用范围窄;适用阶段不明确;法院角色不明确;被害人意见效力不明确;认罪与协商关系不明确;应当适用全面强制辩护制度;上诉制度需完善;协商程序与其他简易诉讼程序关系混乱。最后,基于我国台湾地区协商程序立法及实务经验的角度,对当前大陆地区认罪认罚从宽制度改革提出几点建议:1.扩大认罪认罚从宽制度的适用范围至全部公诉案件;2.在侦查阶段排除认罪认罚从宽制度的适用;3.明确法院在认罪认罚从宽制度中的工作重心为审查被告人认罪认罚的真实性和自愿性;4.认罪认罚从宽制度应当以适用全面强制辩护制度为改革方向;5.应当明确征求被害人意见的程序,但被害人是否同意并非认罪认罚从宽制度适用的前提条件;6.对于适用认罪认罚从宽制度的案件应当原则上禁止上诉,明确可以上诉的例外;7.明确认罪认罚从宽制度与简易程序、速裁程序的关系。
  • dc.description.abstract
  • In order to solve the heavy pressure of criminal cases,design a simple procedure or the plea bargaining system in every country of the world.Common law countries,even the traditional civil law countries also absorb the spirit of American plea bargaining system,develop different types of plea bargaining model.In order to carry out the reform of the criminal procedure system in Taiwan,China held the "national judicial reform meeting" in 1999,and established the reform direction of the "Modified Adversarial system "after the meeting.The leading of the "Modified Adversarial system ",Taiwan criminal procedure introduces the plea consultation system.After introduce the process of consultation,together with other supporting reform measures play the function of improving the efficiency of lawsuit,has obtained certain achievements of reform.Also,however,there is a loophole in the legislation itself as well as the legislation and practice of the separation problem.This paper aimed to Taiwan consultation procedures based on the study of the legislation and judicial practice experience for the current pleaded guilty to forfeit them from the reform of the system to put forward some valuable Suggestions.In this paper,besides introduction,conclusion,references,thanks,a total of three parts.The first part,from the concept and features of consultation program in Taiwan,the legislative background and the value of Taiwan,the connotation and the lines in the plea bargaining in Taiwan.The second part,according to its legislative text introduces the content of the plea bargaining in Taiwan.Consultation process according to the relevant provisions of the criminal procedure law in Taiwan is mainly embodies the following characteristics:negotiation procedure for sentencing negotiations,not only a felony to negotiate,consultation in the case of public prosecution,the judge shall not participate in negotiations,can negotiate with the content of the limitations,special protection on the rights of the defendant,a partial mandatory defense,the victim is one of the important conditions,the consultation process principle,limit the appeal,the appeal trial for the judge and the law judge.The third part,firstly,on the basis of certain achievements must reform,legislative and judicial practice problems arising from the evaluation,think Taiwan consultation procedures applicable range is narrow;Applicable stage is not clear;The court role is not clear;The victim opinion effectiveness is not clear;A plea and consultative relationship is not clear;Comprehensive compulsory defense system shall apply;Appeal system should be perfected;Negotiation process with other relationship summary procedure chaos.Finally,based on the experience of the consultation procedure legislation and practice in Taiwan,the current confession forfeit from system reform puts forward several Suggestions:1.expand the scope to greater forfeit their system to all the public prosecution;2.in the investigation phase pleaded guilty to rule out the use of greater forfeit system;3.clear the court work center of gravity in the greater confessed forfeit system for examining the defendant pleaded guilty to forfeit their authenticity and voluntary;4.pleaded guilty to forfeit from system should be to apply comprehensive compulsory defense system to reform direction;5.should be clear to solicit the opinions of the victim,but the victim whether agree with the premise of not greater confessed forfeit system applicable conditions;6.pleaded guilty to apply forfeit their appeal case should be prohibited in principle from system,clear the situation could appeal exception;7.greater clear confessed forfeit their system and the summary procedure,the relationship between speed and cutting process.
  • dc.subject.discipline
  • D925.2
  • dc.date.issued
  • 2017-03-11
回到顶部