【摘要】：當(dāng)今世界上主要有兩種訴訟模式：一是大陸法系國家盛行的在訴訟過程中較為強(qiáng)調(diào)檢察官、法官職權(quán)作用,相對淡化被告人辯護(hù)職能的職權(quán)式訴訟模式；二是英美法系國家實行的較為強(qiáng)調(diào)檢察官、被告人主導(dǎo)訴訟程序,講求訴辯平等、控辯相對抗,審判中立的抗辯式訴訟模式。我國現(xiàn)行刑事審判模式類似于大陸法系國家的職權(quán)式訴訟模式,控、辯、審三方形成了一個控辯平等、法官居中裁決的穩(wěn)定三角支架。但事實上我國的刑事審判模式在一定程度上具有控、審不分,控辯力量失衡的缺陷。因此賦予律師更大的辯護(hù)權(quán)是實現(xiàn)刑事訴訟控辯平等的重要舉措,對根據(jù)事實與法律最大限度地維護(hù)犯罪嫌疑人、被告人的合法權(quán)益,保證司法公正,起著舉足輕重的作用。然而律師的辯護(hù)權(quán)能否得到有效的實現(xiàn)不僅取決于立法上的規(guī)定，更依賴于在實踐中能否得到真正的落實。聯(lián)合國《關(guān)于律師作用的基本原則》制定了一系列條文來保障律師的辯護(hù)權(quán)，形成了律師辯護(hù)權(quán)保護(hù)的國際標(biāo)準(zhǔn)，雖然不具有強(qiáng)制執(zhí)行的效力，但已被許多國家認(rèn)同和遵循。我國也在不斷致力于保障和完善律師的辯護(hù)權(quán)，自1979年恢復(fù)律師制度以來，我國律師辯護(hù)權(quán)制度得到了不斷的發(fā)展與完善。1996年《刑事訴訟法》的修改在律師辯護(hù)權(quán)制度上更是取得了很大進(jìn)步，但由于時代的局限，立法上仍然存在不少問題。2007年《律師法》修改時在律師會見權(quán)、閱卷權(quán)、調(diào)查取證權(quán)等方面有所突破，，但與1996年《刑事訴訟法》的規(guī)定之間亟須整合一致。此次《刑事訴訟法》的修改吸收了《律師法》中進(jìn)步、成熟的理念和經(jīng)驗，注意到了與《律師法》的銜接，并結(jié)合中國現(xiàn)實修改完善了律師辯護(hù)權(quán)。但是缺陷與進(jìn)步如影隨形，相關(guān)立法的出臺并未能根除制度上的缺陷，這些缺陷仍然影響和制約了律師辯護(hù)作用的發(fā)揮。本文通過筆者在工作中遇到的三個真實案例，從會見權(quán)、閱卷權(quán)和調(diào)查取證權(quán)三個方面揭示律師辯護(hù)權(quán)存在的制度缺陷，剖析缺陷存在的原因以及針對這些缺陷提出自己的一些修改和完善建議，希望在未來的立法中能夠彌補(bǔ)這些缺陷。
[Abstract]:Nowadays, there are two main litigation modes in the world: first, the civil law countries emphasize the role of prosecutors and judges in the process of litigation, and relatively dilute the functional litigation mode of the defense function of the accused; Second, the Anglo-American law system countries put more emphasis on the prosecutor, the defendant led the proceedings, emphasizing the equality of litigation and defense, the confrontation between prosecution and defense, and the neutral mode of adversarial litigation. The current criminal trial mode in our country is similar to the functional litigation mode in civil law countries. The three parties of prosecution, defense and trial have formed a stable triangular support of equality of prosecution and defense and central decision of judges. However, in fact, to a certain extent, the criminal trial mode of our country has the defects of charge, trial, and the imbalance of prosecution and defense power. Therefore, giving lawyers greater right to defend is an important measure to realize the equality of prosecution and defense in criminal proceedings, and plays an important role in safeguarding the legitimate rights and interests of criminal suspects and defendants and ensuring judicial justice to the maximum extent according to facts and laws. However, the effective realization of lawyers' right to defense depends not only on the legislative provisions, but also on whether they can be truly implemented in practice. The United Nations basic principles on the role of lawyers have formulated a series of provisions to protect the right of lawyers to defense, forming an international standard for the protection of lawyers' right to defence. Although it does not have the effect of enforcement, it has been recognized and followed by many countries. Our country is also constantly committed to safeguarding and improving the right to defense of lawyers. Since the restoration of the lawyer system in 1979, The system of lawyers' right to defense in our country has been continuously developed and perfected. The revision of the Criminal procedure Law in 1996 has made great progress in the system of lawyers' right to defense, but due to the limitations of the times, There are still many problems in legislation. When the Law of lawyers was amended in 2007, there were some breakthroughs in the right of lawyers to see, the right to read papers, the right to investigate and obtain evidence, but there was an urgent need to integrate with the provisions of the 1996 Criminal procedure Law. The revision of the Criminal procedure Law absorbs the progressive and mature ideas and experiences in the Law of lawyers, pays attention to the connection with the Law of lawyers, and modifies and perfects the right of lawyers to defend in the light of the reality of China. However, the defects and progress follow each other, and the introduction of relevant legislation has failed to eradicate the defects in the system, which still affect and restrict the role of lawyers in defense. Through three real cases encountered by the author in his work, this paper reveals the institutional defects of lawyers' right to defense from three aspects: the right to meet, the right to read papers and the right to investigate and obtain evidence. This paper analyzes the causes of the defects and puts forward some suggestions for the revision and improvement of these defects, hoping to make up for these defects in the future legislation.
【學(xué)位授予單位】：黑龍江大學(xué)
【學(xué)位級別】：碩士
【學(xué)位授予年份】：2012
【分類號】：D926.5

【參考文獻(xiàn)】

相關(guān)期刊論文 前6條

1 顧列平;;我國刑事證據(jù)開示制度的構(gòu)建[J];法治研究;2008年12期

2 周國均;控、辯平衡與保障律師的訴訟權(quán)利[J];法學(xué)研究;1998年01期

3 鐘坤凡;修改律師法以保障律師調(diào)查取證權(quán)[J];綿陽經(jīng)濟(jì)技術(shù)高等專科學(xué)校學(xué)報;2002年04期

4 傅賢國;論偵查階段律師法律幫助權(quán)的擴(kuò)大化[J];四川警官高等�？茖W(xué)校學(xué)報;2005年04期

5 申君貴;;論我國新律師法與刑事訴訟法的沖突及其銜接[J];湘潭大學(xué)學(xué)報(哲學(xué)社會科學(xué)版);2009年02期

6 彭海青;;辯護(hù)律師權(quán)利的發(fā)展與缺憾——基于新律師法的思考[J];政法學(xué)刊;2008年01期

本文編號：2473070