本文選題：死刑檢察監(jiān)督 + 司法控制　； 參考：《武漢大學(xué)》2011年博士論文

【摘要】：本文遵循刑事一體化的思路,以強(qiáng)化死刑案件法律監(jiān)督為主線,以實(shí)現(xiàn)死刑的司法控制為目標(biāo),立足死刑立法及實(shí)踐存在的問題,從理論與實(shí)踐的結(jié)合、實(shí)體和程序的統(tǒng)一,跨學(xué)科、多角度的研究死刑案件立案、偵查、審判、執(zhí)行環(huán)節(jié)的監(jiān)督措施,努力構(gòu)建和探索死刑檢察監(jiān)督的理論體系及運(yùn)作方式。 第一章基礎(chǔ)論：死刑檢察監(jiān)督理論概述 首先,從明晰相關(guān)概念入手,糾正監(jiān)督的錯(cuò)誤認(rèn)知,論解監(jiān)督的悖論,揭示法律監(jiān)督的內(nèi)涵,總結(jié)中國(guó)檢察制度的特色。其次,概說死刑司法控制的模式,概括死刑司法控制的特征：控制主體的特定性、控制手段的訴訟性、控制過程的人為性、控制路徑的綜合性、控制結(jié)果的有效性。規(guī)制死刑檢察監(jiān)督的內(nèi)涵特征：死刑檢察監(jiān)督是指,檢察機(jī)關(guān)為了保障死刑的統(tǒng)一正確適用,防止死刑冤錯(cuò)案件的發(fā)生,切實(shí)減少死刑執(zhí)行數(shù)量,通過權(quán)能的整合和增進(jìn),對(duì)死刑訴訟進(jìn)行的平衡調(diào)適和糾偏督促活動(dòng)。再次,研究死刑檢察監(jiān)督的產(chǎn)生發(fā)展和演變過程；評(píng)述各國(guó)死刑控制的發(fā)展路徑,考察典型國(guó)家死刑檢察監(jiān)督制度；闡述死刑檢察監(jiān)督的法理依據(jù),并分析其價(jià)值。 第二章實(shí)體論：死刑檢察監(jiān)督的標(biāo)準(zhǔn) 關(guān)于檢察監(jiān)督死刑案件的法律標(biāo)準(zhǔn)。針對(duì)死刑適用總則標(biāo)準(zhǔn)的認(rèn)識(shí)分歧,認(rèn)為學(xué)者們的判定沒有原則上的區(qū)別,“罪行極其嚴(yán)重”是指導(dǎo)司法實(shí)踐具體應(yīng)用死刑的深層次判斷性因素,本質(zhì)在于從理念上框定和限制死刑的嚴(yán)格運(yùn)用,單獨(dú)存在不具有實(shí)質(zhì)性的執(zhí)行意義,必須和刑法分則中死刑適用的具體規(guī)定有機(jī)配合才有本源性的價(jià)值；綜合歸納死緩案件適用“不是必須立即執(zhí)行”12種具體判斷標(biāo)準(zhǔn),實(shí)例介紹實(shí)踐中已經(jīng)實(shí)行的可以對(duì)被告人適用死緩的13種情形,認(rèn)為死緩是死刑司法控制的最佳途徑和最優(yōu)選擇,應(yīng)遵循以適用死緩為首選,以死刑立即執(zhí)行為例外的執(zhí)法原則,積極擴(kuò)展死緩的適用范圍,合目的從寬擴(kuò)大適用,降低死刑立即執(zhí)行的數(shù)量；總結(jié)歸納死刑案件的裁量情節(jié),認(rèn)為量刑情節(jié)的價(jià)值判斷對(duì)死刑的司法限制具有決定因素,闡述了法定應(yīng)當(dāng)從輕情節(jié)不可適用死刑的絕對(duì)性,排除了可以從輕情節(jié)的不適用死刑的特殊性,強(qiáng)調(diào)了酌定從輕情節(jié)的從寬性。 關(guān)于檢察監(jiān)督死刑案件的證據(jù)標(biāo)準(zhǔn)。針對(duì)死刑案件證明標(biāo)準(zhǔn)的質(zhì)疑,認(rèn)為深入分析我國(guó)現(xiàn)實(shí)刑事證明標(biāo)準(zhǔn)的內(nèi)在含義及死刑錯(cuò)案發(fā)生的機(jī)理,強(qiáng)調(diào)提高死刑案件證明標(biāo)準(zhǔn)并沒有實(shí)際意義,需要提升和釋疑的是證明的技能和程度；控制死刑、提高死刑證明標(biāo)準(zhǔn)的效益在于增加證明的程度和幅度,即構(gòu)建復(fù)雜程序,增設(shè)過濾篩查機(jī)制,發(fā)揮檢察監(jiān)督作用,實(shí)現(xiàn)多層次、多環(huán)節(jié)把關(guān)控制。 關(guān)于死刑執(zhí)法沖突的協(xié)調(diào)。提出化解司法解釋沖突的構(gòu)想是實(shí)體法的應(yīng)用解釋統(tǒng)歸法院行使,程序法的應(yīng)用解釋由檢察機(jī)關(guān)負(fù)責(zé)。對(duì)于政法委協(xié)調(diào)案件的改良,應(yīng)創(chuàng)新制度構(gòu)建長(zhǎng)效機(jī)制,進(jìn)一步明確執(zhí)法監(jiān)督的程序和方法,增強(qiáng)執(zhí)法協(xié)調(diào)的技術(shù)性、實(shí)效性和科學(xué)性。 第三章程序論：死刑檢察監(jiān)督的程序 第一,死刑案件的立案監(jiān)督。立案監(jiān)督是死刑控制不可忽視的環(huán)節(jié),但應(yīng)深化機(jī)理,補(bǔ)正結(jié)構(gòu),建立機(jī)制,使立案監(jiān)督由行政性的軟約束轉(zhuǎn)換為司法性的硬管制。第二,死刑案件的偵查監(jiān)督。偵查監(jiān)督是檢察機(jī)關(guān)死刑檢察監(jiān)督的重點(diǎn),但平行運(yùn)行、接續(xù)而進(jìn)、不分主次,權(quán)力各異、職責(zé)分離特點(diǎn)的混合性模式,造成了檢察機(jī)關(guān)監(jiān)督控制不利的自然缺陷。優(yōu)化檢察監(jiān)督的檢警模式,要弱化警察對(duì)檢察的制約關(guān)系,由相互獨(dú)立、相互配合、互相制約、檢察監(jiān)督的關(guān)系,轉(zhuǎn)化為相互配合、檢察監(jiān)督的構(gòu)建。第三,死刑案件的審判監(jiān)督。刑事審判監(jiān)督是控制死刑合理運(yùn)用的關(guān)鍵環(huán)節(jié),包括死刑量刑建議沖突的判別、死刑公訴裁量機(jī)制的拓展、死刑定罪與量刑程序的分離、死刑證據(jù)開示制度的強(qiáng)化、死刑二審訴訟不利的承擔(dān)和檢察客觀義務(wù)走偏的糾正六個(gè)方面。第四,死刑案件的復(fù)核監(jiān)督。死刑復(fù)核程序?qū)λ佬踢m用的司法控制功效特殊,根據(jù)死刑復(fù)核具體案件的特點(diǎn)采取不同的監(jiān)督策略,使其局限在一定的案件范圍和工作環(huán)節(jié)；采用多元化的復(fù)核方式；時(shí)限的設(shè)置必需寬嚴(yán)相宜；加強(qiáng)“兩高”死刑復(fù)核的有效協(xié)調(diào),建立事前解決沖突的相關(guān)機(jī)制,適時(shí)召開聯(lián)席工作會(huì)議,組建特別組織重點(diǎn)審查久拖不決案件,建立重大分歧案件聯(lián)合審查制度。第五,死刑案件的執(zhí)行監(jiān)督。死刑執(zhí)行程序?qū)λ佬踢m用的限制具有重要意義,但死刑的執(zhí)行和監(jiān)督都亟須加強(qiáng)和改進(jìn),應(yīng)將死刑執(zhí)行主體賦予司法行政機(jī)關(guān),由司法行政機(jī)關(guān)在羈押場(chǎng)所內(nèi)統(tǒng)一執(zhí)行,檢察機(jī)關(guān)的監(jiān)所部門作為死刑執(zhí)行監(jiān)督主體是現(xiàn)實(shí)合理的選擇。 第四章改革論：死刑檢察監(jiān)督的完善 第一,死刑正當(dāng)程序的構(gòu)建,重點(diǎn)從設(shè)置程序違法制裁手段、增設(shè)防止錯(cuò)殺的屏障、加強(qiáng)弱方訴訟權(quán)利保障和健全基礎(chǔ)性程序制度等四個(gè)方面完善死刑正當(dāng)程序。第二,死刑檢察監(jiān)督理念的提升。檢察執(zhí)法理念是檢察人員在執(zhí)法實(shí)踐中逐漸積累形成并指導(dǎo)其行為的思想、觀點(diǎn)和心理狀態(tài)的總和。要堅(jiān)持死刑審慎理念、時(shí)俱進(jìn)理念、程序正當(dāng)理念、和諧執(zhí)法理念,完善死刑適用的平衡統(tǒng)一機(jī)制,建立辦理死刑案件矛盾疏導(dǎo)機(jī)制,建立學(xué)習(xí)提升技能發(fā)展機(jī)制。第三,死刑檢察監(jiān)督機(jī)制的改革,包括內(nèi)部監(jiān)督制約流程的完善和外部協(xié)調(diào)配合模式的設(shè)立兩個(gè)方面。
[Abstract]:This article follows the idea of criminal integration, focusing on strengthening the legal supervision of death penalty cases, aiming at the realization of judicial control of death penalty, based on the problems existing in the death penalty legislation and practice, from the combination of theory and practice, the unity of entity and procedure, interdisciplinary and multi angle research on the case filing of death penalty cases, investigation, trial and supervision. Measures to build and explore the theoretical system and operation mode of the death penalty procuratorial supervision.
Chapter one: basic theory: the theory of death penalty procuratorial supervision
First, we begin with the definition of the relevant concepts, correct the wrong cognition of supervision, discuss the paradox of supervision, reveal the connotation of legal supervision and summarize the characteristics of the Chinese procuratorial system. Secondly, it generalizes the mode of judicial control of death penalty, and summarizes the characteristics of the judicial control of death penalty: the specificity of the control subject, the litigation of the control means, and the human nature of the control process. The comprehensiveness of the control path and the effectiveness of the control results. The connotation characteristics of the supervision of the procuratorial supervision of the death penalty: the procuratorial supervision of death penalty means that the procuratorial organ can protect the unification of the death penalty correctly, prevent the occurrence of the unjust cases of the death penalty, reduce the number of execution of the death penalty, and the balance of the death penalty litigation through the integration and promotion of the power. Thirdly, the development and evolution process of procuratorial supervision of death penalty is studied, the development path of death penalty control in various countries is reviewed, the procuratorial supervision system of death penalty in typical countries is inspecting, the legal basis of procuratorial supervision of death penalty is expounded, and its value is analyzed.
The second chapter of entity theory: the standard of procuratorial supervision of death penalty
On the legal standards of procuratorial supervision and supervision of the death penalty cases, the understanding of the general standards for the application of the death penalty is divided. It is considered that there is no principle difference between the scholars and the "extremely serious crime" is the deep judgment factor to guide the judicial practice to apply the death penalty specifically. The essence is to frame and restrict the strict application of the death penalty from the concept. There is no substantive execution meaning, it must be combined with the specific provisions of the application of the death penalty in the penal code in order to have the original value; the 12 specific criteria for the application of the case of death and reprieve are summarized, and the 13 cases in which the defendants can be applied in practice are introduced in the practice. The slow death penalty is the best way and the best choice for judicial control of death penalty. We should follow the principle of law enforcement with the application of death and reprieve as the first choice, with the immediate execution of death penalty as an exception, actively expand the scope of application of death and reprieve, expand the application of the purpose and reduce the amount of immediate execution of death penalty, sum up the discretion plot of death penalty cases, and consider the circumstances of sentencing. The value judgment has a decisive factor in the Judicial Restriction of the death penalty, and expounds the absoluteness of the statutory law should not apply to the death penalty, excludes the particularity of the non application of the death penalty, and emphasizes the leniency of the discretionary plot.
On the standard of evidence for procuratorial supervision of death penalty cases. In view of the challenge of the standard of proof of death penalty cases, it is believed that the inner meaning of the actual criminal proof standard and the mechanism of the miscase of death penalty in China are deeply analyzed. It is emphasized that the improvement of the standard of proof of death penalty cases is not practical, and the skill and degree of proof need to be raised and explained. Death penalty, the benefit of improving the standard of proving the death penalty lies in increasing the degree and extent of the proof, that is, constructing complex procedures, adding filter screening mechanism, playing the role of procuratorial supervision, realizing multi-level and multi ring control.
On the coordination of the conflict of the execution of the execution of the death penalty. The idea of resolving the conflict of judicial interpretation is the application of the substantive law to the exercise of the court. The application interpretation of the procedural law is in charge of the procuratorial organs. For the improvement of the coordination cases of the political and Law Commission, a long-term mechanism should be constructed by the innovation system, the procedures and methods of supervision of law enforcement are further confirmed, and the association of law enforcement is strengthened. It is technical, effective and scientific.
The third chapter of procedure theory: the procedure of procuratorial supervision of death penalty
First, the case supervision of the death penalty case. The case supervision is a link that can not be ignored in the death penalty control. But we should deepen the mechanism, complement the structure, establish the mechanism, make the case supervision from the administrative soft constraint to the judicial hard control. Second, the investigation supervision of the death penalty case. The supervision of the procuratorial organs is the focus of the procuratorial supervision of the prosecution organs, but parallel to the supervision of the procuratorial organs. The mixed mode of operation and continuation, without distinction of primary and secondary, different power and separation of responsibilities has caused the natural defects of the supervision and control of the procuratorial organs. The optimization of the mode of procuratorial supervision and supervision should weaken the restrictive relations of the police to the procuratorial work, and the relationship of mutual independence, mutual coordination, mutual restriction, procuratorial supervision and mutual cooperation, The construction of procuratorial supervision. Third, the judicial supervision of the death penalty cases. The criminal trial supervision is the key link to control the rational use of the death penalty, including the judgement of the conflict of the death penalty sentencing proposal, the expansion of the punishment mechanism of the death penalty public prosecution, the separation of the death penalty and the sentencing procedure, the strengthening of the evidence opening system of the death penalty, the adverse undertaking of the second instance of the death penalty and the unfavourable undertaking of the death penalty second instance. Procuratorial objective obligation to correct six aspects. Fourth, the death penalty case review supervision. The death penalty review procedure for the application of the death penalty judicial control effect is special, according to the characteristics of the death penalty review specific cases to take different supervision strategies, so that it is limited to a certain range of cases and work links; the use of multiple methods of review; The establishment of the limit must be appropriate and strict; the effective coordination of the "two high" capital punishment review should be strengthened, the relevant mechanisms for solving the conflict before the incident are set up, the joint working meeting is held at the right time, the special organization is set up to examine the long drags and the joint review system of major disagreement cases. Fifth, the execution supervision of the death penalty cases. The restrictions on the application of the death penalty are of great significance, but the execution and supervision of the death penalty must be strengthened and improved. The judicial administrative organs should be given to the main body of the execution of the death penalty, and the judicial administrative organs should be carried out in a place of detention in a unified way. The supervision department of the procuratorial organs is a realistic and reasonable choice as the execution of the supervision of the death penalty.
The fourth chapter reform theory: the perfection of procuratorial supervision of death penalty
First, the construction of the due process of death penalty, focusing on four aspects of perfecting the due process of death penalty from the setting procedures of illegal sanctions, adding the barrier to prevent the wrong killing, strengthening the protection of the weak party's litigation rights and perfecting the basic procedural system. Second, the promotion of the idea of the procuratorial supervision of death penalty. Gradually accumulate and guide the thought, the point of view and the summation of the psychological state of the death penalty, adhere to the concept of the death penalty prudent, the concept of the proper procedure, the concept of a harmonious law enforcement, perfect the balanced and unified mechanism for the application of the death penalty, the establishment of the mechanism for dealing with the contradiction of the death penalty cases, the establishment of the mechanism for the development of the learning and upgrading skills. Third, procuratorial supervision of death penalty. The reform of supervision mechanism includes two aspects: the perfection of internal supervision and control process and the establishment of external coordination mode.
【學(xué)位授予單位】：武漢大學(xué)
【學(xué)位級(jí)別】：博士
【學(xué)位授予年份】：2011
【分類號(hào)】：D925.2;D926.3

【相似文獻(xiàn)】

相關(guān)期刊論文 前10條

1 段厚省;WTO協(xié)議司法獨(dú)立原則與民事行政檢察監(jiān)督之回應(yīng)[J];政治與法律;2003年01期

2 段厚省;民事行政檢察監(jiān)督的觀念更新與理念重構(gòu)[J];國(guó)家檢察官學(xué)院學(xué)報(bào);2003年04期

3 趙澤君;論我國(guó)民事訴訟檢察監(jiān)督制度的完善[J];中北大學(xué)學(xué)報(bào)(社會(huì)科學(xué)版);2005年02期

4 瀆職犯罪檢察監(jiān)督課題組;;司法工作人員瀆職犯罪的檢察監(jiān)督[J];國(guó)家檢察官學(xué)院學(xué)報(bào);2006年06期

5 張成學(xué);王艷雯;;論罰金刑審判監(jiān)督——以檢察監(jiān)督為視角[J];現(xiàn)代商貿(mào)工業(yè);2009年17期

6 趙成磊;徐新意;;實(shí)現(xiàn)司法公正需要專業(yè)化檢察官[J];常州工學(xué)院學(xué)報(bào)(社科版);2009年06期

7 黃疆平;;淺論人大監(jiān)督與檢察監(jiān)督的關(guān)系[J];高等函授學(xué)報(bào)(哲學(xué)社會(huì)科學(xué)版);2010年02期

8 黃治文;彭德貴;;加強(qiáng)檢察機(jī)關(guān)對(duì)社區(qū)矯正法律監(jiān)督的思考[J];重慶交通大學(xué)學(xué)報(bào)(社會(huì)科學(xué)版);2010年06期

9 陳海浦;;民行檢察監(jiān)督與民行審判銜接機(jī)制研究——從權(quán)利告知和文書送達(dá)角度出發(fā)[J];法制與經(jīng)濟(jì)(中旬刊);2010年12期

10 黃小雨;;論民事執(zhí)行檢察監(jiān)督的不足與完善[J];理論界;2011年03期

相關(guān)會(huì)議論文 前10條

1 林春艷;;制約民行檢察監(jiān)督職能發(fā)揮的因素及解決方案[A];第五屆國(guó)家高級(jí)檢察官論壇論文集[C];2009年

2 張應(yīng)山;李國(guó)江;;論檢察監(jiān)督的法制功能和社會(huì)功能[A];第五屆國(guó)家高級(jí)檢察官論壇論文集[C];2009年

3 張祥虎;;有關(guān)檢察監(jiān)督幾個(gè)問題的探討[A];第二屆貴州法學(xué)論壇文集[C];2001年

4 于文卿;;淺議對(duì)監(jiān)獄提請(qǐng)假釋的檢察監(jiān)督[A];第七屆國(guó)家高級(jí)檢察官論壇會(huì)議文章[C];2011年

5 劉慶華;譚偉峰;趙鵬;;民事調(diào)解檢察監(jiān)督探析[A];第七屆國(guó)家高級(jí)檢察官論壇會(huì)議文章[C];2011年

6 張應(yīng)山;劉碧洲;;民事訴訟中檢察監(jiān)督制度的完善[A];第五屆國(guó)家高級(jí)檢察官論壇論文集[C];2009年

7 鄭導(dǎo);薛偉宏;;試論檢察機(jī)關(guān)對(duì)刑罰執(zhí)行的監(jiān)督——兼論減刑、假釋、暫予監(jiān)外執(zhí)行決定機(jī)制的改革完善[A];中國(guó)犯罪學(xué)研究會(huì)第十六屆學(xué)術(shù)研討會(huì)論文集（下冊(cè)）[C];2007年

8 李維兵;;芻議民事立案檢察監(jiān)督制度[A];第五屆國(guó)家高級(jí)檢察官論壇論文集[C];2009年

9 王振峰;劉京蒙;;論民事執(zhí)行的檢察監(jiān)督[A];第五屆國(guó)家高級(jí)檢察官論壇論文集[C];2009年

10 謝志強(qiáng);;論行政壟斷及其檢察監(jiān)督[A];首屆國(guó)家高級(jí)檢察官論壇論文集[C];2005年

相關(guān)重要報(bào)紙文章 前10條

1 湖南省株洲市人民檢察院 李霜　吳敏;加大刑事附帶民事訴訟檢察監(jiān)督力度[N];檢察日?qǐng)?bào);2011年

2 李斌 朱闖;檢察監(jiān)督法官自由裁量權(quán)四要點(diǎn)[N];檢察日?qǐng)?bào);2004年

3 河北省淶源縣人民檢察院 墨建新;從日常工作中捕捉監(jiān)所檢察監(jiān)督線索[N];檢察日?qǐng)?bào);2011年

4 蘇州平江區(qū)檢察院副檢察長(zhǎng) 崔進(jìn)文;行政行為的檢察監(jiān)督[N];江蘇法制報(bào);2005年

5 沈海濤;拘役犯“回家”難并非檢察監(jiān)督缺位[N];檢察日?qǐng)?bào);2008年

6 本報(bào)通訊員 周晶晶　長(zhǎng)春;檢察監(jiān)督斷了假醫(yī)生的財(cái)路[N];檢察日?qǐng)?bào);2008年

7 沈義 陽(yáng)學(xué)智 侯映雪;加強(qiáng)民行檢察理論研究 提高民行檢察監(jiān)督能力[N];檢察日?qǐng)?bào);2005年

8 張立;檢察監(jiān)督不會(huì)影響審判的中立性和權(quán)威性[N];檢察日?qǐng)?bào);2008年

9 遼寧省本溪市人民檢察院 劉妍;強(qiáng)化看守所檢察監(jiān)督的幾點(diǎn)建議[N];檢察日?qǐng)?bào);2009年

10 ;規(guī)范行政執(zhí)法 強(qiáng)化檢察監(jiān)督 促進(jìn)科學(xué)發(fā)展[N];寧夏日?qǐng)?bào);2011年

相關(guān)博士學(xué)位論文 前1條

1 孫寶民;死刑檢察監(jiān)督制度研究[D];武漢大學(xué);2011年

相關(guān)碩士學(xué)位論文 前10條

1 唐懋鎣;論我國(guó)檢察監(jiān)督制度[D];鄭州大學(xué);2003年

2 趙國(guó)華;我國(guó)檢察監(jiān)督的幾點(diǎn)思考[D];內(nèi)蒙古大學(xué);2012年

3 池青華;論檢察監(jiān)督[D];延邊大學(xué);2001年

4 孫君;論我國(guó)檢察監(jiān)督及其完善[D];延邊大學(xué);2002年

5 宋瑩琛;未成年人刑事案件的檢察監(jiān)督及其完善[D];曲阜師范大學(xué);2012年

6 徐寅;論我國(guó)刑罰執(zhí)行檢察監(jiān)督的完善[D];遼寧大學(xué);2012年

7 鮑歡歡;刑罰執(zhí)行檢察監(jiān)督制度研究[D];安徽大學(xué);2011年

8 劉慧慧;論民事行政裁判執(zhí)行的檢察監(jiān)督[D];山東大學(xué);2010年

9 馮菊艷;我國(guó)行政訴訟檢察監(jiān)督制度運(yùn)行分析[D];湘潭大學(xué);2011年

10 咸亞麗;論刑事訴訟中的檢察監(jiān)督[D];中國(guó)政法大學(xué);2004年

，

本文編號(hào)：2079233