本文選題：審查起訴程序 + 檢察機(jī)關(guān)　； 參考：《華東政法大學(xué)》2013年博士論文

【摘要】：走向民主化、法治化的中國(guó)，“權(quán)力制約”因子日趨活躍�！皩�(quán)力關(guān)進(jìn)制度的籠子”，形成不敢腐的懲戒機(jī)制、不能腐的防范機(jī)制、不易腐的保障機(jī)制已成為執(zhí)政黨的重要目標(biāo)，其也必將成為上至國(guó)家政治生活、下至司法領(lǐng)域具體案件辦理中關(guān)注的重要內(nèi)容。中國(guó)的檢察機(jī)關(guān)擁有法律監(jiān)督權(quán)，其中不僅包括偵查權(quán)、公訴權(quán)，還有對(duì)偵查機(jī)關(guān)、審判機(jī)關(guān)的訴訟監(jiān)督權(quán)等，從而檢察機(jī)關(guān)也被個(gè)別學(xué)者稱為“法官之上的法官”，1其擁有的權(quán)力也可能成為“權(quán)力之上的權(quán)力”，因此受到了較為廣泛的關(guān)注。公訴權(quán)是世界各國(guó)檢察機(jī)關(guān)共同擁有的權(quán)力，由此也給各個(gè)法域的互相學(xué)習(xí)、比較和借鑒提供了便利。作為法治建設(shè)后來(lái)者的中國(guó)，公訴權(quán)因其主體定位的獨(dú)特、與其他司法區(qū)域規(guī)定的差異，也引起了對(duì)公訴權(quán)制約模式的極大爭(zhēng)論。公訴權(quán)制約的必要性已成為當(dāng)前社會(huì)、學(xué)界、實(shí)務(wù)界的共識(shí)，最高人民檢察院也通過(guò)其在司法領(lǐng)域的權(quán)力發(fā)布了一些措施，如強(qiáng)化版的“三級(jí)審批制”、人民監(jiān)督員制度、不起訴聽證制度等，而學(xué)界則較多從“普遍真理”入手，強(qiáng)調(diào)法官對(duì)公訴權(quán)的制約。非常遺憾的是，無(wú)論是一般學(xué)者、專家的建議，還是最高人民檢察院頒布的被切實(shí)適用的各司法解釋，2012年修改的《中華人民共和國(guó)刑事訴訟法》都未見吸收；鑒于這部法律在公訴權(quán)規(guī)范中的重要作用，筆者認(rèn)為，目前為止的各種探索、建議可能都因先天不足或后天失調(diào)，還無(wú)法真正引起立法者的重視；為此，探索之路仍漫漫，“同志仍須努力”。 作為刑事訴訟中的三大權(quán)力之一，公訴權(quán)雖沒(méi)有如同審判權(quán)般受到重視，但其可以延伸到偵查程序、貫穿于審判程序，并成為兩者鏈接的橋梁；作為其主體的檢察機(jī)關(guān)，被憲法欽定為“法律監(jiān)督機(jī)關(guān)”，可見其作用和地位的不同一般。但公訴權(quán)作為權(quán)力的一種，其可能造成的濫用和對(duì)權(quán)利的威脅是與生俱來(lái)的，對(duì)公訴權(quán)制約的探討在理論上是必不可少的，在現(xiàn)實(shí)中也是綿綿不絕。 從中國(guó)審查起訴程序的制度文本看，審查起訴的過(guò)程存在程序封閉，當(dāng)事人參與不足，以及檢察官審查的行政化、書面化和決定的不獨(dú)立等問(wèn)題，審查起訴的救濟(jì)則存在檢察機(jī)關(guān)自我主導(dǎo)、自我評(píng)判的問(wèn)題，從而導(dǎo)致整個(gè)審前公訴權(quán)的正當(dāng)化程度不夠。從中國(guó)審查起訴程序的實(shí)踐樣本看，審查起訴程序的獨(dú)立地位沒(méi)有得到一致的認(rèn)可，當(dāng)事人的權(quán)利被有意或無(wú)意地忽視，檢察官辦案的法定獨(dú)立性受到不當(dāng)影響，審查起訴存在著不當(dāng)?shù)闹虚g處理，審查起訴后的救濟(jì)效果不理想等，如此，審查起訴程序還有很大的完善空間。從世界各主要法域的制度情況看，以公訴權(quán)制約為基本目標(biāo)，公訴權(quán)正當(dāng)化的途徑呈現(xiàn)多樣性，包括公訴權(quán)行使前的準(zhǔn)備、公訴權(quán)行使的程序和對(duì)公訴決定的救濟(jì)等，前兩者主要涉及審查起訴程序，1最后一者是審查起訴的救濟(jì)程序，而他們更為關(guān)注的就是后者。相比于域外的公訴權(quán)正當(dāng)化形式，中國(guó)的審查起訴救濟(jì)無(wú)法照搬域外，而審查起訴程序本身的獨(dú)立性則為通過(guò)程序正當(dāng)化公訴權(quán)提供了可能。從現(xiàn)有的一些實(shí)踐改革和學(xué)者的各種建議分析看，已得以推進(jìn)的改革不少都是“動(dòng)機(jī)不純”、效果難料；各種建議很少得到實(shí)務(wù)界的回應(yīng)，不少也存在違憲、違法，甚至涉及到政治體制上的重大變革，實(shí)施困難較大。不僅如此，這些改革雖不能說(shuō)完全無(wú)理，但是否一定必須如此實(shí)施，從而在司法領(lǐng)域大動(dòng)干戈，論證不多，最后大多也只能限于“討論”層次，沒(méi)有上升到實(shí)踐層次，更別提制度層次。中國(guó)審查起訴中的公訴權(quán)由檢察機(jī)關(guān)行使，其有一個(gè)獨(dú)立的程序作為支撐的平臺(tái)，即審查起訴程序，這是許多司法區(qū)域中沒(méi)有的�？紤]到這一特點(diǎn)，筆者認(rèn)為，通過(guò)對(duì)審查起訴程序進(jìn)行必要的設(shè)計(jì)與改革，使該程序具備司法化的運(yùn)作特點(diǎn)，從而成為審前程序正當(dāng)化公訴權(quán)的主要途徑。如此，既遵守當(dāng)前的憲法規(guī)范、檢察機(jī)關(guān)定位，也在理論和實(shí)踐上具有相當(dāng)?shù)暮侠硇�、可行性�?本文共有六個(gè)部分，除導(dǎo)言外，各章節(jié)內(nèi)容大體如下： 第一章為刑事審查起訴程序的基本問(wèn)題。本章主要對(duì)審查起訴程序中涉及的一些基本問(wèn)題予以界定，從而奠定程序正當(dāng)化的基礎(chǔ)。本章分為四節(jié)，第一節(jié)指出，審查起訴程序是在有關(guān)利害關(guān)系人參與下，對(duì)偵查過(guò)程及結(jié)論進(jìn)行審查，并確定是否起訴的一個(gè)專門程序，其在主體、對(duì)象、內(nèi)容、方式和結(jié)果上具有自身的特點(diǎn)。審查起訴與起訴審查雖都是正當(dāng)化公訴權(quán)的一種形式，兩者也有密切的關(guān)系，但在所處的階段、對(duì)公訴權(quán)制約的特點(diǎn)、目的、主體和對(duì)象等方面都存在差異。第二節(jié)指出，中國(guó)當(dāng)前在立法上、理論上都未將審查起訴程序作為一個(gè)獨(dú)立程序，與該程序本身的地位并不相稱；審查起訴程序不僅有獨(dú)立的任務(wù)，主導(dǎo)的公訴權(quán)也呈現(xiàn)裁斷職能，且當(dāng)前的程序也為這一權(quán)力運(yùn)作提供了空間，應(yīng)當(dāng)可以作為一個(gè)獨(dú)立的程序階段。第三節(jié)指出，檢察機(jī)關(guān)的公訴權(quán)包括審查起訴、公訴決定和出席法庭等權(quán)力，相對(duì)于在法庭審判中的公訴權(quán)具有三方格局，其正當(dāng)化得到相當(dāng)?shù)谋Ｕ�，在審查起訴中的審查與決定的權(quán)力缺少恰當(dāng)?shù)谋O(jiān)督；審查起訴程序的正當(dāng)性完善不僅是因公訴權(quán)濫用的可能，也是權(quán)力監(jiān)督、司法公正、人權(quán)保障和司法實(shí)踐等多方面的需要。第四節(jié)指出，審查起訴程序作為刑事程序的一個(gè)環(huán)節(jié)，是以訴訟認(rèn)識(shí)論作為科學(xué)性基礎(chǔ)，風(fēng)險(xiǎn)管理論作為合理性基礎(chǔ)，訴訟目的論作為效用性基礎(chǔ)，而程序正義論則是整個(gè)程序的基本保障。 第二章為刑事審查起訴程序的規(guī)范文本與實(shí)踐樣本。本章主要是對(duì)中國(guó)審查起訴程序的制度性情況與具體實(shí)踐樣態(tài)進(jìn)行分析與調(diào)查，以點(diǎn)題。本章共分為三節(jié)，第一節(jié)主要是對(duì)審查起訴程序的規(guī)范文本進(jìn)行詳細(xì)介紹與分析，提出在審查對(duì)象、審查方式、當(dāng)事人參與以及審查處理等四個(gè)方面的正當(dāng)性缺陷。第二節(jié)主要是對(duì)審查起訴程序的實(shí)踐樣本進(jìn)行考察。筆者通過(guò)對(duì)全國(guó)各地20個(gè)左右的基層與地市級(jí)檢察機(jī)關(guān)公訴人員的問(wèn)卷調(diào)查與座談，展現(xiàn)當(dāng)前實(shí)務(wù)人員對(duì)審查起訴程序的基本認(rèn)識(shí)、當(dāng)事人權(quán)利保障、影響辦案人員的因素、審查起訴中的中間處理、對(duì)審查起訴決定的救濟(jì)等方面的基本情況，并提出了一些改革的粗略建議，以了解實(shí)務(wù)人士的回應(yīng)。第三節(jié)是對(duì)審查起訴程序的正當(dāng)性不足進(jìn)行全面總結(jié)。一方面，審查起訴程序?qū)V權(quán)實(shí)現(xiàn)了一定程度的正當(dāng)化，如強(qiáng)調(diào)對(duì)案件事實(shí)的發(fā)現(xiàn)、檢察機(jī)關(guān)的主導(dǎo)與能動(dòng)和檢察機(jī)關(guān)的自我約束等，但其卻存在檢察機(jī)關(guān)一家獨(dú)大，偵查機(jī)關(guān)、犯罪嫌疑人與被害人參與不足，權(quán)力限制與權(quán)利保障的程序邏輯不顯，以及程序的不透明等問(wèn)題，另一方面，筆者也嘗試性的探討了造成審查起訴程序正當(dāng)性不足的原因，如對(duì)檢察機(jī)關(guān)定位認(rèn)識(shí)的混亂、對(duì)審判中心主義的誤讀、人治理念的作祟、權(quán)利保護(hù)意識(shí)與權(quán)力服務(wù)意識(shí)的沖突等。 第三章為刑事審查起訴程序的域外考察。本章主要是對(duì)兩大法系及法系融合的主要國(guó)家、地區(qū)審查起訴的制度與部分實(shí)踐情況進(jìn)行詳細(xì)展示，以探討域外審查起訴程序中具有共性意義的經(jīng)驗(yàn)與規(guī)律，從而為中國(guó)審查起訴程序的完善提供借鑒之用。本章共分為三節(jié)，第一節(jié)以兩大法系主要國(guó)家法國(guó)、德國(guó)、美國(guó)和英國(guó)的審查起訴立法與部分實(shí)踐情況為主要內(nèi)容，第二節(jié)則以當(dāng)前法系融合較有特點(diǎn)的日本、中國(guó)臺(tái)灣地區(qū)、俄羅斯的立法與部分實(shí)踐情況為主要內(nèi)容，同時(shí)，考慮國(guó)際刑事法院的獨(dú)特性，文中也作了單獨(dú)的介紹；第三節(jié)則是對(duì)三類審查起訴情況的大總結(jié)，既提出了各個(gè)法系的分經(jīng)驗(yàn)，也對(duì)所列各法域的總體特點(diǎn)予以分析，，并結(jié)合中國(guó)審查起訴的特點(diǎn)，提出完善中國(guó)審查起訴程序作為公訴權(quán)正當(dāng)化的必由之路。 第四章為刑事審查起訴程序完善的宏觀思考。本章主要是對(duì)在完善審查起訴程序中的一些基本問(wèn)題予以商討。全文共分為三節(jié)，第一節(jié)指出，審查起訴程序的正當(dāng)化包括了實(shí)體正義與程序正義兩方面的要求，而實(shí)體正義方面要求程序正當(dāng)化必須具有合目的性、進(jìn)步性和有效率，程序正義方面則要求正當(dāng)化必須在裁斷者的公正性、當(dāng)事人的參與性和程序的理性方面有所體現(xiàn)。第二節(jié)則是討論檢察機(jī)關(guān)在正當(dāng)化的審查起訴程序中的應(yīng)有地位。在對(duì)各主要司法區(qū)域中檢察機(jī)關(guān)定位分析的基礎(chǔ)上，提出檢察機(jī)關(guān)在立法上從來(lái)都不是純粹的司法機(jī)關(guān)，在職權(quán)上具有較強(qiáng)的行政性，客觀公正義務(wù)是其普遍的義務(wù)，但檢察機(jī)關(guān)從來(lái)也沒(méi)有如同法官般的獨(dú)立性；至于中國(guó)檢察機(jī)關(guān)的定位，立法上是法律監(jiān)督機(jī)關(guān)，學(xué)理上的見解是五花八門，實(shí)踐中也呈現(xiàn)多面性，而筆者最后也認(rèn)為檢察機(jī)關(guān)性質(zhì)上是法律監(jiān)督機(jī)關(guān)，在行使權(quán)力的方式上存在行政式或司法式的多種選擇；在審查起訴程序中，檢察機(jī)關(guān)依然是法律監(jiān)督者，可以充當(dāng)裁斷者，但并非一成不變。第三節(jié)指出，當(dāng)前中國(guó)審查起訴程序的功能主要體現(xiàn)在對(duì)偵查、對(duì)案件處理及程序自治方面，但在實(shí)踐中出現(xiàn)了變異，過(guò)多強(qiáng)調(diào)對(duì)偵查的強(qiáng)化、對(duì)審判的輸入和證據(jù)的補(bǔ)充，不利于司法效率和公正；為此，筆者建議將審查起訴程序的功能重定為監(jiān)督偵查、制衡審判和正當(dāng)化公訴權(quán)。 第五章是完善刑事審查起訴程序的具體構(gòu)建。本章共分為三節(jié)，第一節(jié)指出當(dāng)前在完善審查起訴程序上的多種探索，包括法官審查模式、社會(huì)監(jiān)督模式和檢察機(jī)關(guān)的內(nèi)部監(jiān)督模式，但都存在一定的不足而無(wú)法堪當(dāng)正當(dāng)化公訴權(quán)的大任。第二節(jié)則是對(duì)公訴權(quán)正當(dāng)化的惟一合理之程序——審查起訴程序的完善提出具體的完善建議，在分析程序主導(dǎo)者、程序的參與者、程序適用的對(duì)象、審查的形式、律師介入、證明標(biāo)準(zhǔn)等八個(gè)程序要素基礎(chǔ)上提出了審查起訴程序的普通型、特殊型的不同構(gòu)建。第三節(jié)則是解決審查起訴程序完善過(guò)程中可能遇到的質(zhì)疑與配套問(wèn)題。構(gòu)想中的審查起訴程序可能遇到效率與公正的沖突、自偵案件的正當(dāng)性難題、偵查機(jī)關(guān)的角色變化、以及審查起訴的階段劃分對(duì)檢察機(jī)關(guān)的沖擊，但這些本身都不會(huì)形成真正的問(wèn)題；同時(shí)，作為構(gòu)想中的審查起訴程序的一部分，檢察中立、公檢法關(guān)系方面應(yīng)當(dāng)予以適當(dāng)微調(diào)。
[Abstract]:Towards democratization and the rule of law in China, the "power restriction" factor is becoming more and more active. "Putting power into the cage", forming a punishing mechanism that does not dare to rot, the mechanism of preventing corruption, and the incorruptible guarantee mechanism have become an important goal of the ruling party. It will also become a specific case in the political life of the country and to the judicial field. The procuratorial organ of China has the right of legal supervision, which includes not only the right of investigation, the right of public prosecution, but also the supervisory authority of the investigative organs and the judicial organs, and the procuratorial organs are also called "judges above the judge" by some scholars, and the 1 of their power may also become "power above the power". Therefore, the right of public prosecution is the common power of the procuratorial organs of all countries in the world, which also provides convenience to each other's jurisdictions to learn from each other, to compare and draw lessons from each other. As a successor of the rule of law, the right of public prosecution is unique to its main body and the difference between his judicial region and the public prosecution. There is a great debate on the mode of the right restriction. The necessity of the restriction of public prosecution has become the consensus of the current society, the academic circles and the practical circles. The Supreme People's Procuratorate has also issued some measures through its power in the judicial field, such as the "three level examination and approval system", the people's supervisor system, the non prosecution hearing system and so on. The truth "emphasizes the judge's restriction on the right to public prosecution. It is regrettable that neither the general scholars, the experts' suggestions or the judicial interpretations that the Supreme People's Procuratorate promulgated, the" People's Republic of China criminal procedure law ", which was amended in 2012, has not been absorbed; in view of the importance of this Law in the right to public prosecution The author believes that all kinds of exploration so far can not be taken seriously by the legislator because of the deficiency of the sky or the disorder of the day after day. For this reason, the path of exploration is still long, and "comrades still have to work hard".
As one of the three powers in the criminal procedure, the right of public prosecution is not regarded as the right of trial, but it can extend to the procedure of investigation, run through the trial procedure and become a bridge between the two. The procuratorial organ, as its main body, has been designated as the "legal supervision organ" by the constitution, but it can be seen in its different roles and status. The right of public prosecution, as a kind of power, is inborn with the possible abuse and threat to rights. The discussion of the restriction of the right of public prosecution is indispensable in theory, and is also continuous in reality.
From the system text of China's examination and prosecution procedure, the process of examination and prosecution has a closed procedure, insufficient participation of the parties, the administration of the prosecutor, the inindependence of written and determined decisions, and the remedies of the examination and prosecution have the self dominance of the procuratorial organ and the question of self judgment, which leads to the right of the whole pretrial public prosecution. When it is not enough, the independent status of the prosecution procedure has not been agreed upon by the practice samples of China's prosecution procedure, and the rights of the parties are neglected intentionally or unintentionally. The legal independence of the prosecutor's handling cases has been improperly affected. The examination and prosecution have undue intermediate treatment and the effect of the remedies after the prosecution. It is not ideal and so on, so there is still a lot of space for the procedure of examination and prosecution. From the system situation of the main legal fields in the world, the basic objective is the restriction of the right of public prosecution, and the ways of the justification of the right of public prosecution are varied, including the preparation before the exercise of the right of public prosecution, the process of exercising the right of public prosecution, and the relief to the decision of the public prosecution. The former two are mainly involved in the trial. The last one is the procedure of examining and prosecuting, and the last one is the remedies to examine and prosecute, and they are more concerned with the latter. Compared to the extraterritorial form of the right to prosecute, China's review and prosecution relief cannot copy the extraterritorial, and the independence of the prosecution procedure itself is possible through Cheng Xuzheng's right to turn public prosecution through Cheng Xuzheng. The reform and the various suggestions of the scholars have shown that many of the reforms that have been promoted are "impure of motivation", and the results are difficult to be expected; various suggestions are rarely responded to by the practical circles, and many are also unconstitutional, illegal, and even involve major changes in the political system, which are difficult to implement. But whether it must be carried out must be carried out so that there is not much argument in the field of justice, and most of which can only be limited to the level of "discussion", not up to the level of practice, not to mention the level of the system. The prosecution power in China's prosecution is exercised by the procuratorial organ, and it has an independent procedure as a supporting platform, that is to review and prosecute The procedure, which is not in many judicial areas. Considering this characteristic, I think that the procedure has the characteristic of judicial operation through the necessary design and reform of the procedure of examining and prosecuting the prosecution, thus becoming the main way to justify the right of public prosecution in the pretrial procedure. So, it is not only to abide by the current constitutional norms, the position of the procuratorial organs, but also the position of the procuratorial organs. It is quite reasonable and feasible in theory and practice.
There are six parts in this paper. Besides the introduction, the contents of each chapter are as follows:
The first chapter is the basic question of the procedure for criminal examination and prosecution. This chapter mainly defines some basic issues involved in the procedure of examination and prosecution, thus laying the foundation for the justification of the procedure. This chapter is divided into four sections. The first section points out that the procedure of examination and prosecution is to examine the process and conclusions of the investigation and to make sure that the prosecution procedure is concerned with the interests of the interests of the people. It has its own characteristics in the subject, the object, the content, the way and the result. The examination and prosecution and the prosecution review are both a form of the right to justify the public prosecution, and there is a close relationship between them. However, there are differences in the characteristics, purposes, subjects and objects of the system of public prosecution. The second section points out that in the current legislation, China has not considered the prosecution procedure as an independent procedure in theory and is not commensurate with the status of the procedure itself; the prosecution procedure not only has an independent task, but also the dominant public prosecution also presents a disorderly function, and the current procedure also provides space for the operation of this power. As an independent stage of procedure, the third section points out that the prosecutor's right to public prosecution includes the authority to review and prosecute, decide on public prosecution and attend the court, which is three party to the right of public prosecution in court trial, its justification is quite guaranteed, and the power of examination and decision in the examination and prosecution is lack of proper supervision; The justification of the prosecution procedure is not only the possibility of the abuse of the right of prosecution, but also the need for power supervision, judicial justice, human rights protection and judicial practice. The fourth section points out that the review of the prosecution procedure as a link of the criminal procedure is the scientific basis of litigation Epistemology, and the theory of risk management as a rationalization basis. Teleological skopos theory is the basis of utility, while procedural justice is the basic guarantee of the whole procedure.
The second chapter is the normative text and practice sample of the procedure of criminal examination and prosecution. This chapter mainly analyzes and investigates the systematic situation and concrete practice pattern of the procedure of the examination and prosecution in China. This chapter is divided into three sections. The first section is mainly about the detailed introduction and analysis of the normative text of the procedure of the examination and prosecution, and the review is made in the review. The legitimate defects of four aspects, such as the object, the method of examination, the participation of the parties and the examination and treatment. The second section is mainly to examine the practical samples of the procedure of the prosecution. Through the investigation and Discussion on the questionnaire of the public prosecutors of the grass-roots and municipal procuratorial organs around the country, the author presents the review of the current practice. The basic understanding of the procedure, the protection of the rights of the parties, the factors that affect the case of case handling personnel, the examination of the intermediate handling in the prosecution, the basic situation of the remedies in the examination of the decision of the prosecution, and some rough suggestions for the reform, in order to understand the response of the practical people. The third section is a comprehensive and comprehensive review of the legitimacy of the procedure of the examination and prosecution. On the one hand, the procedure of examining and prosecuting the prosecution has achieved a certain degree of justification, such as the discovery of the facts of the case, the leading and activism of the procuratorial organs and the self-restraint of the procuratorial organs, but there is a lack of participation in the procuratorial organs, the investigative organs, the suspects and the victims, the limitation of power and the protection of the rights. On the other hand, the author also tries to discuss the reasons for the lack of the legitimacy of the prosecution procedure, such as the confusion of the position of the procuratorial organ, the misreading of the trial centralism, the idea of the rule of man, the conflict between the consciousness of the protection of the rights and interests and the consciousness of power and service.
The third chapter is the extraterritorial investigation of the procedure of the criminal examination and prosecution. This chapter is mainly a detailed demonstration of the system and part of the practice of the two major legal system and legal system, which is the main country for the integration of the legal system and the legal system, in order to discuss the common experience and rules in the procedure of the extraterritorial review and prosecution, and thus improve the procedure for the examination and prosecution in China. This chapter is divided into three sections. The first section is the main content of the legislation and part of the practice of the review and prosecution in the main countries of the two legal systems, France, Germany, the United States and the United Kingdom. The second section is the main content of the legislation and part of the practice of Japan, Taiwan, China, and orus, which are more characteristic of the current legal system. Considering the uniqueness of the International Criminal Court, the article has also made a separate introduction; the third section is a summary of the three types of examination and prosecution. It not only puts forward the experience of the various legal systems, but also analyzes the overall characteristics of the various jurisdictions, and combines the characteristics of China's examination and prosecution, and proposes to perfect the procedure of China's examination and prosecution as the right to public prosecution. The only way to justify.
The fourth chapter is the macro reflection on the perfection of the procedure of criminal examination and prosecution. This chapter mainly discusses some basic questions in the procedure of perfecting the procedure of examination and prosecution. The full text is divided into three sections. The first section points out that the justification of the procedure of examination and prosecution includes the requirements of the two sides of substantive justice and procedural justice, and the substantive justice requires the procedure to be correct. When it has to be objective, progressive and efficient, procedural justice requires that justification should be embodied in the impartiality of the adjudicator, the participation of the parties and the rationality of the procedure. The second section is to discuss the position of the procuratorial organ in the procedure of the justification and prosecution. On the basis of the position analysis of the organs, it is suggested that the procuratorial organ has never been a purely judicial organ in legislation, with strong administrative nature in the right on the job, the obligation of objective justice is its universal obligation, but the procuratorial organ has never been as independent as the judge. As for the position of the Chinese procuratorial organs, the legislature is the legal supervision organ. At last, the author thinks that the procuratorial organ is the legal supervision organ, and there are many kinds of administrative or judicial choices in the way of exercising power. In the procedure of examining and prosecuting, the procuratorial organ is still the supervisor of the law, which can act as a cutter, but not one. The third section points out that the current function of China's review and prosecution procedure is mainly reflected in the investigation, the handling of cases and the autonomy of the procedure, but there is a variation in the practice, too much emphasis on the investigation, the input of the trial and the supplement of the evidence, which is not conducive to the judicial efficiency and justice. Therefore, the author suggests that the prosecution procedure will be examined. The function is re established to supervise investigation, balance trial and justify public prosecution power.
The fifth chapter is the concrete construction of the procedure for perfecting the procedure of the criminal examination and prosecution. This chapter is divided into three sections. The first section points out a variety of exploration on the procedure of improving the procedure of the examination and prosecution, including the model of judge review, the mode of social supervision and the internal supervision mode of the procuratorial organs, but there are some shortcomings which can not be the major task of justifying the right of public prosecution. The second section is
【學(xué)位授予單位】：華東政法大學(xué)
【學(xué)位級(jí)別】：博士
【學(xué)位授予年份】：2013
【分類號(hào)】：D925.2;D926

【參考文獻(xiàn)】

相關(guān)期刊論文 前9條

1 陳海鋒;鄒積超;;論合適成年人在普通刑事案件偵查訊問(wèn)中的引入[J];青少年犯罪問(wèn)題;2012年04期

2 劉邕麟;;對(duì)我國(guó)人民監(jiān)督員制度運(yùn)行情況的調(diào)查分析——以A市B區(qū)人民檢察院為范本[J];廣西大學(xué)學(xué)報(bào)(哲學(xué)社會(huì)科學(xué)版);2012年04期

3 彭東;;檢察一體化下的公訴機(jī)制研究[J];河南社會(huì)科學(xué);2011年03期

4 李力,韓德明;解釋論、語(yǔ)用學(xué)和法律事實(shí)的合理性標(biāo)準(zhǔn)[J];法學(xué)研究;2002年05期

5 龍宗智;;檢察機(jī)關(guān)辦案方式的適度司法化改革[J];法學(xué)研究;2013年01期

6 季衛(wèi)東;;依法風(fēng)險(xiǎn)管理論[J];山東社會(huì)科學(xué);2011年01期

7 阿·阿·加夫里連科;劉向文;楊云斐;;中俄兩國(guó)檢察機(jī)關(guān)組織和活動(dòng)憲法原則的比較研究[J];河南省政法管理干部學(xué)院學(xué)報(bào);2010年03期

8 魏治勛;;批判的“反諷”與“反諷”的批判——評(píng)鄧正來(lái)《中國(guó)法學(xué)向何處去》[J];現(xiàn)代法學(xué);2007年02期

9 王春法;;當(dāng)代科學(xué)技術(shù)發(fā)展的基本特點(diǎn)及其含義[J];學(xué)習(xí)與實(shí)踐;2002年11期

本文編號(hào)：2019639