本文選題：刑事強(qiáng)制措施 + 基本權(quán)利　； 參考：《中國政法大學(xué)》2011年碩士論文

【摘要】：拘傳、取保候?qū)彙⒈O(jiān)視居住、拘留和逮捕等刑事強(qiáng)制措施是直接關(guān)系到公民憲法上的基本權(quán)利,貫穿偵查、審查起訴和審判整個(gè)階段的重要訴訟活動(dòng)。尤其是拘留和逮捕,其嚴(yán)重性實(shí)質(zhì)上跟判決生效以后的有期徒刑沒有兩樣。另外,在偵查過程中實(shí)施的各種強(qiáng)制性措施,比如勘驗(yàn)、檢查、搜查、扣押、監(jiān)聽等措施,限制或侵犯財(cái)產(chǎn)權(quán)、居住權(quán)、通信權(quán)等公民憲法上的基本權(quán)利,其嚴(yán)重性跟限制人身自由的強(qiáng)制措施差不多。本文比較中國和韓國的刑事強(qiáng)制措施,包括偵查過程中的強(qiáng)制性措施,這里先記述中國刑事強(qiáng)制措施制度,然后介紹韓國刑事強(qiáng)制措施制度,最后比較分析兩國制度。 本文第一章說明兩國刑事強(qiáng)制措施的概念,兩國刑事訴訟法對(duì)強(qiáng)制措施的規(guī)定方式、體系、種類,世界通用的有關(guān)普遍原則,即強(qiáng)制措施法定主義、司法審查原則、比例性原則和無罪推定原則。 本文第二章先說明中國非羈押性強(qiáng)制措施:拘傳、取保候?qū)徍捅O(jiān)視居住,然后介紹韓國的類似制度:拘引、拘留?逮捕適否審查制度和保釋。中國取保候?qū)徍捅O(jiān)視居住,尤其是取保候?qū)徳谝欢ǔ潭壬掀鹁葷?jì)程序的作用,因此本章介紹和比較韓國作為救濟(jì)程序的拘留?逮捕適否審查制度和保釋,但是兩國這些制度的不同處比相同處更多。 本文第三章先說明中國的羈押性強(qiáng)制措施—拘留和逮捕,然后簡介韓國拘留和逮捕,接著進(jìn)行比較分析兩國制度。兩國的拘留和逮捕在刑事訴訟上的意義和作用差不多,但是在具體的立法和執(zhí)法中呈現(xiàn)相當(dāng)大的區(qū)別,即在拘留和逮捕的條件、令狀主義的確立與否、羈押期限等方面有比較大的區(qū)別。 本文第四章介紹兩國對(duì)物的強(qiáng)制措施:勘驗(yàn)、檢查、搜查和扣押,然后比較兩國制度。中國刑事訴訟法沒有直接規(guī)定對(duì)物的強(qiáng)制措施,而規(guī)定勘驗(yàn)、檢查、搜查、扣押等一些強(qiáng)制性措施。這篇論文為了比較研究方便把上述的強(qiáng)制性措施統(tǒng)一表述為對(duì)物的強(qiáng)制措施。兩國制度規(guī)定對(duì)物的強(qiáng)制措施方式不一樣,中國不把對(duì)物的強(qiáng)制措施納入到強(qiáng)制措施的范疇內(nèi),而韓國把它納入到強(qiáng)制措施的范疇內(nèi)。 本文第五章介紹對(duì)隱私權(quán)的強(qiáng)制措施。這不是根據(jù)強(qiáng)制措施直接對(duì)象的分類,而是根據(jù)會(huì)被侵犯的權(quán)利性質(zhì)的分類�，F(xiàn)代日常生活當(dāng)中,隱私權(quán)越來越成為重要的權(quán)利,可是隨著科學(xué)技術(shù)的發(fā)展,侵犯隱私權(quán)的危險(xiǎn)性也越來越大。因此,需要確立限制侵犯隱私權(quán)的規(guī)定。 本文第五章作為比較和分析兩國強(qiáng)制措施和強(qiáng)制性措施的總結(jié),提出中國現(xiàn)行有關(guān)法律存在的一些問題和改善意見,即提出以擴(kuò)張強(qiáng)制措施的范疇、確立令狀主義、改善救濟(jì)程序、明確逮捕的條件、縮短羈押期限來謀求改善法律的建議。
[Abstract]:Criminal coercive measures, such as arrest, bail pending trial, surveillance of residence, detention and arrest, are important litigation activities in the whole stage of investigation, examination and trial, which are directly related to the basic rights of citizens in the constitution. Detention and arrest, in particular, are essentially as serious as prison terms after the sentence came into effect. In addition, various coercive measures implemented in the course of investigation, such as investigation, inspection, search, seizure, surveillance and other measures, restrict or violate the basic constitutional rights of citizens, such as property rights, residency rights, communication rights, etc. It is as serious as coercive measures that restrict personal liberty. This paper compares the criminal coercive measures between China and South Korea, including the coercive measures in the course of investigation. This paper first describes the system of criminal coercive measures in China, then introduces the system of criminal coercive measures in Korea, and finally compares and analyzes the systems of the two countries. The first chapter of this paper explains the concept of criminal coercive measures in both countries, the way, the system, the types and the universal principles of compulsory measures in the criminal procedure law of the two countries, that is, the statutory doctrine of coercive measures and the principle of judicial review. Principle of proportionality and presumption of innocence. The second chapter first explains the non-custodial coercive measures in China: detention, bail pending trial and residential surveillance, and then introduces the similar system in Korea: arrest, detention? Arrest censorship and bail. In China, bail pending trial and residential surveillance, especially bail pending trial, to a certain extent, play a role in the relief procedure, so this chapter introduces and compares the Korean detention as a relief procedure? Arrests are subject to censorship and bail, but there are more differences than similarities. The third chapter first explains the compulsory measures of detention in China-detention and arrest, then introduces the detention and arrest in Korea, and then makes a comparative analysis of the two countries' systems. Detention and arrest in the two countries have the same significance and effect in criminal proceedings, but there are considerable differences in specific legislation and law enforcement, that is, in the conditions of detention and arrest, the establishment of writ doctrine, There is a big difference in terms of the duration of detention. The fourth chapter introduces the compulsory measures of the two countries: investigation, inspection, search and seizure, and then compares the two countries' systems. China's Criminal procedure Law does not directly prescribe compulsory measures against property, but some compulsory measures, such as inspection, search, seizure and so on. For the purpose of comparative study, this paper presents the above coercive measures as coercive measures in rem. The two countries' systems stipulate different ways of coercive measures against things. China does not bring them into the category of coercive measures, while South Korea brings them into the category of coercive measures. The fifth chapter introduces the compulsory measures to the right of privacy. This is not based on the classification of direct objects of coercive measures, but on the nature of the rights to be violated. In modern daily life, the right of privacy is becoming more and more important, but with the development of science and technology, the risk of violating the right of privacy is increasing. Therefore, it is necessary to establish restrictions on the violation of the right to privacy provisions. In the fifth chapter of this paper, as a comparison and analysis of the two countries' coercive measures and coercive measures, the author puts forward some problems and improvements in China's current relevant laws, that is, to expand the scope of coercive measures to establish writ doctrine. Improve relief procedures, clear conditions of arrest, shorten the duration of detention to seek to improve the law.
【學(xué)位授予單位】：中國政法大學(xué)
【學(xué)位級(jí)別】：碩士
【學(xué)位授予年份】：2011
【分類號(hào)】：D925.2;D931.26

【參考文獻(xiàn)】

相關(guān)期刊論文 前10條

1 文正九,吳蓮姬;韓中文化交流現(xiàn)狀與展望[J];當(dāng)代韓國;2001年04期

2 謝佑平;賀賢文;;論我國刑事強(qiáng)制措施的完善[J];法治研究;2010年05期

3 陳士果;;加強(qiáng)偵查權(quán)的保障人權(quán)職能[J];公安研究;2009年04期

4 朱吉龍;;偵查程序中犯罪嫌疑人的財(cái)產(chǎn)權(quán)保障[J];公安研究;2009年04期

5 謝佑平,萬毅;刑事訴訟法原則:概念演進(jìn)和辨析[J];江蘇公安�？茖W(xué)校學(xué)報(bào);2002年02期

6 沙文亮;;中德強(qiáng)制措施比較及其對(duì)我國的啟示[J];晉中學(xué)院學(xué)報(bào);2008年06期

7 張小寧;呂澤華;;談強(qiáng)制措施的含義、訴訟功能及性質(zhì)——中德偵查強(qiáng)制措施比較研究[J];遼寧警專學(xué)報(bào);2006年02期

8 陳祥華;;《刑事訴訟法》的再修改與完善刑事強(qiáng)制措施[J];理論界;2008年11期

9 洪芳;;法官變更指控罪名制度的法理分析[J];前沿;2007年10期

10 李忠誠;刑事強(qiáng)制措施功能研究[J];法制與社會(huì)發(fā)展;2002年05期

相關(guān)碩士學(xué)位論文 前2條

1 景逢均;論刑事強(qiáng)制措施的適用及完善[D];中國政法大學(xué);2006年

2 陶翠霞;論我國刑事強(qiáng)制措施制度的完善[D];山東大學(xué);2009年

，

本文編號(hào)：2017140