發(fā)布時間：2018-06-25 01:59

  本文選題：審查逮捕 + 復議復核　； 參考：《西南政法大學》2012年碩士論文

【摘要】：逮捕是刑事強制措施中最嚴厲的一種，如果運用得當則能發(fā)揮保障刑事訴訟活動順利進行的功能，如果運用不當則會產生消極的影響和危害。在司法實踐中，我國審查逮捕工作奉行“構罪既捕”原則，不當逮捕比例過高，不能很好體現對人權的保障。逮捕制度的改革位于刑事訴訟改革的上游階段，意義重大，影響深遠。本調研報告選擇某縣檢察院的審查逮捕工作為調研對象，試圖通過對該院審查逮捕工作的分析，總結該院審查逮捕工作所取得的成績和存在的不足，并提出完善的建議，以期對我國逮捕制度的改革乃至司法體制的改革有所裨益。 本文出引言和結語外，，正文共分為四個部分，16000多字。 第一部分研究審查逮捕工作的運行機制。該院審查逮捕遵循的是由承辦人提出初步意見，科長審核，分管副檢察長決定的流程。但是重大疑難案件或者不捕案件往往需要由科室集體討論決定。其創(chuàng)新之處在于設立案管中心（獨立于偵查監(jiān)督科）負責接受和發(fā)送需要由批捕部門處理的案件以及在處理輕傷害案件中側重于適用刑事和解政策。 第二部分研究審查逮捕工作的運行狀況。該院2003年至2011年批捕率和不捕率分別為95.08%和4.92%。不捕的案件中，事實不清、證據不足原因的不捕數量要多于不構成犯罪不捕和無逮捕必要不捕數量之和。不捕案件復議復核的情況是多年為0件，公安機關很少使用這種權利。該院在糾正漏捕方面發(fā)揮的監(jiān)督作用有限，每年的案件數量很少。造成以上現象的深層次原因包括現行考核機制的制約、案多人少矛盾的困擾以及檢法關系的考量。 第三部分分析該院審查逮捕工作取得的成績和存在的問題。該院取得的成績包括注重對犯罪嫌疑人意見的聽取和注重“提前介入，引導偵查”。存在的問題主要表現為：一是逮捕率過高；二是造成對犯罪嫌疑人適用法律不公；三是絕對不捕案件的一些處理方式損害了司法權威；四是復議、復核往往不被重視；五是糾正漏捕的監(jiān)督作用有限；六是忽視逮捕的刑罰條件和必要性條件。 第四部分是提出改進審查逮捕工作的建議。包括五個方面：一是樹立維護犯罪嫌疑人合法權益的理念。這需要檢察機關的承辦人員貫徹“慎捕”理念和注重發(fā)揮律師在審查逮捕階段的作用；二是完善被捕人的救濟機制。這需要從賦予被逮捕人復議復核權和完善對逮捕必要性的事后審查機制方面著手；三是改革審查逮捕階段的考核機制。在考核中，應該確立承辦人員的過錯責任原則，對法條理解不一造成的錯案應該規(guī)定免責，這樣可以減少承辦人員在辦理批捕案件時不必要的顧忌；四是強化公安機關的證明責任。公安機關應該在提交逮捕卷宗時強化對逮捕刑罰條件和必要性條件的說理；五是推行不捕雙重說理機制。檢察機關應該注重把向公安機關承辦人員口頭說理和書面說理結合起來，爭取社會對不捕案件的理解和支持。
[Abstract]:Arrest is the harshest of the criminal coercive measures. If it is used properly, it can play the function of ensuring the smooth progress of the criminal proceedings. If it is not used properly, it will have a negative impact and harm. In the judicial practice, the review and arrest work in our country pursues the principle of "not only the crime of construction", the proportion of improper arrest is too high and can not be well embodied. The reform of the arrest system lies in the upper stage of the reform of the criminal procedure, which is of great significance and far-reaching impact. This investigation report chooses the review and arrest work of a county procuratorate as the research object, and tries to summarize the achievements and shortcomings of the review and arrest of the hospital through the analysis of the review and arrest of the hospital, and Put forward perfect suggestions, with a view to our reform of the arrest system and even the reform of the judicial system.
In addition to the introduction and conclusion, the text is divided into four parts and more than 16000 words.
The first part of the study examines the operational mechanism of the arrest work. The review and arrest of the Institute is followed by a preliminary opinion made by the contractor, the review of the chief of the section and the process of the Deputy Attorney General's decision. However, the major and difficult cases or cases of non arrest are often decided by the collective discussion of the Department. The Department of supervision is responsible for accepting and sending cases that need to be handled by the arrest department and focusing on the application of criminal reconciliation policy in handling light injury cases.
The second part of the study examines the operating conditions of the arrest work. In the case of the rate of arrest and the arresting rate of 95.08% and 4.92%., which were not captured by the hospital from 2003 to 2011, the fact is not clear. The number of the reasons for the lack of evidence is more than not the sum of the number of arrests and the lack of arrests. The case of reconsideration for no case reconsideration is 0 years. This right is rarely used by the public security organs. The supervision function of the hospital is limited and the number of cases is small every year. The deep reasons for the above phenomena include the restriction of the current assessment mechanism, the problem of many people with less contradictions and the consideration of the relation of the inspection.
The third part analyses the achievements and existing problems in the review and arrest of the hospital. The achievements of the Institute include paying attention to the hearing of the suspects' opinions and paying attention to "intervention in advance, guiding the investigation". The main problems are as follows: first, the rate of arrest is too high; and the two is the unfair law for the suspects; three, Some ways of handling absolutely no arrests have damaged the judicial authority; four is reconsideration, the review is often not paid attention to; five is the limited supervision function of rectify the leakage; and six is the penalty conditions and necessary conditions for neglecting the arrest.
The fourth part is the proposal to improve the review of the arrest work, including five aspects: first, to establish the concept of safeguarding the legitimate rights and interests of the criminal suspects. This requires the procurator's contractors to carry out the "prudent arrest" concept and pay attention to the role of the lawyer in the review and arrest stage; two is the relief mechanism of the good and the arrests. This needs from the Fu. The arrests reconsider the right to review and improve the post examination mechanism for the necessity of arrest; three is the assessment mechanism of the review and arrest stage. In the assessment, the principle of fault liability of the contractors should be established, and the wrong case should be exempt from the wrong case, which can reduce the arrests' arrest. The unnecessary scruples in the case; the four is to strengthen the burden of proof of the public security organs. The public security organs should strengthen the reason for the arrest and punishment conditions and the necessary conditions when the arrest of the files. The five is to carry out the dual principle of non arrest. The procuratorial organs should pay attention to the combination of the oral reasoning and the written reasoning to the public security organs. To strive for social understanding and support for non arresting cases.
【學位授予單位】：西南政法大學
【學位級別】：碩士
【學位授予年份】：2012
【分類號】：D926.3

【參考文獻】

相關期刊論文 前10條

1 宋南;;淺議審查逮捕工作中的證據問題[J];法制與社會;2009年33期

2 李昌林;強行偵查權之司法制約的比較考察[J];河北法學;2003年01期

3 馬國亮;陳蓉;;審查逮捕工作中適用“無逮捕必要”探析 以四川省彭州市人民檢察院不捕案件為分析樣本[J];中國檢察官;2010年07期

4 朱艷菊;;審查逮捕程序改革中存在問題及解決之策[J];中國檢察官;2010年15期

5 馬海艦;提高審查逮捕案件質量問題探討[J];人民檢察;2003年08期

6 夏陽;陳祖英;;律師介入未成年人犯罪案件審查逮捕程序探索[J];人民檢察;2010年04期

7 李昌林;夏陽;李壽偉;王洪祥;陳瑞華;;未成年人刑事案件審查逮捕程序改革的實踐探索[J];人民檢察;2010年12期

8 李昌林;;審查逮捕程序改革的進路——以提高逮捕案件質量為核心[J];現代法學;2011年01期

9 李昌林;;降低羈押率的途徑探析[J];中國刑事法雜志;2009年04期

10 康誠;張國軒;;檢察機關審查逮捕程序之完善[J];中國刑事法雜志;2010年02期

本文編號：2063997