本文選題：檢察指導案例 + 同案不同處理�。� 參考：《山東大學》2011年碩士論文

【摘要】：相似的刑事案件,有的對罪名認定差異較大,有的對是否批準逮捕認識不一致,有的還對訴與不訴存有不同意見�！巴覆煌幚怼爆F(xiàn)象在檢察機關以不同形式存在。在現(xiàn)實生活中,只要存在1%的處理結果失衡,對于個案當事人而言,也就意味著100%的不公平。同一法律對于同一事實有不同的解讀和法律后果,其直接后果是導致司法公正的缺失。很多案件的當事人因為受到這種“不公正”的待遇,質疑司法的公正,從而引發(fā)社會矛盾。我國是成文法國家,受大陸法系的傳統(tǒng)影響較深,不承認判例的法源地位,而成文法的滯后性和穩(wěn)定性難以適應社會生活的發(fā)展,判例的靈活性和適時性能補充成文法的不足。全國檢察系統(tǒng)每年依照事實和法律作出了數以萬計的具有最后決斷性和最大權威性的決定,這樣一筆巨大的檢察監(jiān)督資源財富并未得到有效利用。近年來,判例的重要性引起了法學理論界和檢察實務界的重視,提出構建我國檢察案例指導制度的呼聲越來越響,2010年7月29最高人民檢察院第十一屆檢察委員會第四十次會議通過了《最高人民檢察院關于案例指導工作的規(guī)定》,標志著檢察案例指導制度的正式確立。為進一步深入貫徹落實此要求,充分發(fā)揮案例指導在檢察工作中的作用,本文主要分四大部分來論證完善檢察案例指導制度的具體構想。一、檢察案例指導制度的概念。這一部分主要通過解讀與其相關的制度的區(qū)別、檢察案例指導的特點和類型,更深入了解檢察案例指導制度,明確檢察案例指導制度法律的效力。二、分析建立我國檢察案例指導制度中存在的問題,以求建立適合中國檢察發(fā)展的案例指導制度。三、提出細化檢察案例指導創(chuàng)制機制的具體構想。從明確檢察案例指導制度創(chuàng)制主體、指導案例選擇標準及其選編程序來闡述,以推動檢察案例指導制度的全面開展。四、建立檢察案例指導的管理實施及相關配套機制,以保證檢察案例指導制度可持性長遠運行。
[Abstract]:In similar criminal cases, there is a great difference in the identification of charges, some have different views on whether to approve arrest, and some have different opinions on whether to sue or not to sue. The phenomenon of "different handling of the same case" exists in different forms in the procuratorial organs. In real life, as long as there is an imbalance of 1%, it means 100% unfairness to the party involved in the case. The same law has different interpretations and legal consequences for the same fact, and its direct consequence is the lack of judicial justice. Because of the unfair treatment, the litigants in many cases question the justice of the judicature, which leads to social contradiction. China is a country of statutory law, which is deeply influenced by the tradition of civil law system, and does not recognize the status of jurisprudence as a source of law. However, the lag and stability of statutory law cannot adapt to the development of social life, and the flexibility and timely performance of precedents supplement the deficiency of statutory law. According to the facts and laws, the national procuratorial system makes tens of thousands of final and authoritative decisions every year, such a huge wealth of procuratorial supervision resources has not been effectively utilized. In recent years, the importance of jurisprudence has attracted the attention of the legal theorists and procuratorial practitioners. The voice of setting up the guiding system of procuratorial cases in our country is getting louder and louder. On July 29, 2010, the 40th meeting of the 11th Procuratorial Committee of the Supreme people's Procuratorate adopted the provisions of the Supreme people's Procuratorate on case guidance work. >, marking the formal establishment of the procuratorial case guidance system. In order to further carry out this request and give full play to the role of case guidance in the procuratorial work, this paper mainly divides into four parts to demonstrate the concrete idea of perfecting the procuratorial case guidance system. First, the concept of prosecutorial case guidance system. This part mainly through the interpretation of the differences between the relevant systems, the characteristics and types of procuratorial case guidance, more in-depth understanding of the procuratorial case guidance system, clear the effectiveness of the procuratorial case guidance system law. Second, it analyzes the problems existing in the establishment of China's procuratorial case guidance system in order to establish a case guidance system suitable for the development of China's procuratorial work. Third, put forward detailed procuratorial cases to guide the creation of specific ideas. In order to promote the overall development of the procuratorial case guidance system, it is expounded from defining the main body of the procuratorial case guidance system, guiding the selection standard of the case and its selection procedure. Fourth, establish the management and implementation of procuratorial case guidance and related supporting mechanisms to ensure the long-term operation of the procuratorial case guidance system.
【學位授予單位】：山東大學
【學位級別】：碩士
【學位授予年份】：2011
【分類號】：D926.3

【參考文獻】

相關期刊論文 前10條

1 蔣惠嶺;建立案例指導制度的幾個具體問題[J];法律適用;2004年05期

2 傅蔚蔚;張旭良;;試論我國案例指導制度之建構[J];法律適用;2006年Z1期

3 周佑勇;;作為過渡措施的案例指導制度——以“行政[2005]004號案例”為觀察對象[J];法學評論;2006年03期

4 蔣集躍,楊永華;司法解釋的缺陷及其補救——兼談中國式判例制度的建構[J];法學;2003年10期

5 潘祖全;;典型案例在檢察機關辦案中的指導作用[J];法學;2008年10期

6 案例指導課題組;許佩琴;;檢察機關案例指導制度的可行性及其途徑[J];華東政法大學學報;2007年06期

7 劉作翔;徐景和;;案例指導制度的理論基礎[J];法學研究;2006年03期

8 傅強;黃福濤;;檢察機關案例指導工作機制研究[J];人民檢察;2008年04期

9 張建升;王軍;黃海龍;王守安;吳革;張敬博;徐伯黎;;檢察機關案例指導制度的建立與完善[J];人民檢察;2010年09期

10 ;判例在聯(lián)邦德國法律制度中的作用[J];人民司法;1998年07期

相關重要報紙文章 前1條

1 最高人民法院 劉崢;[N];人民法院報;2007年

，

本文編號：1946899