發(fā)布時(shí)間：2018-05-23 21:22

  本文選題：兩岸共同打擊犯罪 + 罪犯移管��； 參考：《中國(guó)政法大學(xué)》2011年碩士論文

【摘要】：海峽兩岸因國(guó)共內(nèi)戰(zhàn)自1949年分治迄今已逾60年,伴隨我國(guó)內(nèi)地1978年改革開(kāi)放以及臺(tái)灣1987年解嚴(yán),兩岸民眾因探親、經(jīng)商等往來(lái)不斷,衍生出糾紛與沖突亦漸趨頻繁。穿梭于兩岸之間實(shí)施犯罪行為的犯罪分子或者犯罪組織層出不窮,因此為切實(shí)維護(hù)兩岸法律秩序以及公民利益,兩岸司法機(jī)關(guān)有必要在平等協(xié)商的基礎(chǔ)上逐步建立共同打擊犯罪的良好機(jī)制。 國(guó)際刑事司法協(xié)助是指國(guó)與國(guó)之間在刑事事務(wù)方面,通過(guò)代為從事一定司法行為而互相給予支持、便利、援助的一種司法活動(dòng)。雖然海峽兩岸還沒(méi)有統(tǒng)一,但是臺(tái)灣自古是中國(guó)的一部分,這已是兩岸均承認(rèn)的事實(shí),因此兩岸的司法協(xié)助不能視為兩個(gè)主權(quán)國(guó)家之間的國(guó)際司法協(xié)助。但是我國(guó)的區(qū)際刑事司法協(xié)助又與普通的區(qū)際刑事司法協(xié)助不同,臺(tái)灣享有高度的自治權(quán),尤其是獨(dú)立的司法審判權(quán),兩岸間沒(méi)有哪一個(gè)司法機(jī)關(guān)或者部門可以凌駕于兩岸共同司法系統(tǒng)之上。因此可以說(shuō),我國(guó)的區(qū)際司法協(xié)助在實(shí)踐中沒(méi)有任何的先例可以遵循。 罪犯移管(也稱為被判刑人移管)是區(qū)際司法協(xié)助的一種形式,是指某一外國(guó)人觸犯他國(guó)刑法并經(jīng)該國(guó)審判并判處刑罰后,被移送回其國(guó)籍國(guó)執(zhí)行的一種司法互助活動(dòng)。實(shí)際上是承認(rèn)和執(zhí)行外國(guó)刑事判決的一種表現(xiàn)形式。判刑國(guó)將在本國(guó)受到審判的罪犯移交給另一國(guó)(一般是該罪犯的國(guó)籍國(guó))服刑,是為了使罪犯在他所熟悉的生活或者社會(huì)環(huán)境中服刑,也比較容易獲得親友的探視和照顧等,消除罪犯在國(guó)外服刑所遇到的生活習(xí)慣差異、文化,語(yǔ)言以及心理等各方面障礙等各方面的困難,雖然兩岸之間并不存在語(yǔ)言障礙的問(wèn)題,通常可以以國(guó)語(yǔ)交流,但臺(tái)灣人在大陸服刑或者大陸人在臺(tái)灣服刑還是會(huì)產(chǎn)生背井離鄉(xiāng)之孤寂感,生活習(xí)慣也不盡相同。因此兩岸間罪犯移管的實(shí)現(xiàn)仍有助于罪犯重新接受教育和再改造,有利于其出獄后盡快適應(yīng)社會(huì)生活,也符合人道主義精神。 本文系以刑事司法互助為切入點(diǎn),通過(guò)借鑒國(guó)際間罪犯移管的原則及做法,并對(duì)我國(guó)內(nèi)地與香港澳門特別行政區(qū)之現(xiàn)狀加以闡述,探究海峽兩岸應(yīng)如何解決罪犯移管問(wèn)題,進(jìn)而推動(dòng)兩岸共同打擊犯罪。盡管兩岸簽訂了《海峽兩岸共同打擊犯罪及司法互助協(xié)議》,但由于該協(xié)議與臺(tái)灣《臺(tái)灣地區(qū)與大陸地區(qū)人民關(guān)系條例》第七十五條相抵觸,而我國(guó)刑法第十條也消極的否定了認(rèn)可其它國(guó)家或者地區(qū)的刑事判決。因此協(xié)議簽訂后已逾兩年,兩岸僅有一例成功罪犯移管的案例,也是因?yàn)楫?dāng)事人病重的緣故。
[Abstract]:The civil war between the two sides of the Taiwan Strait has been divided for more than 60 years since 1949. With the reform and opening up of the mainland in 1978 and the lifting of martial law in Taiwan in 1987, people on both sides of the Taiwan Strait have continued to visit relatives and do business, and disputes and conflicts have become more and more frequent. Criminal elements or criminal organizations that shuttle between the two sides of the strait to commit criminal acts are emerging in endlessly. Therefore, in order to effectively safeguard the legal order and the interests of citizens on both sides of the strait, It is necessary for the judicial organs on both sides of the strait to establish a good mechanism for jointly cracking down on crime on the basis of equal consultation. International criminal judicial assistance is a kind of judicial activity which supports, facilitates and assists each other in criminal affairs by acting on behalf of a certain judicial act. Although the two sides of the Taiwan Strait have not yet been reunified, Taiwan has been a part of China since ancient times, which has been recognized by both sides of the strait. Therefore, mutual legal assistance between the two sides of the strait cannot be regarded as international judicial assistance between two sovereign states. However, China's interregional criminal judicial assistance is different from ordinary interregional criminal judicial assistance. Taiwan enjoys a high degree of autonomy, especially its independent judicial jurisdiction. No judicial organ or department on both sides of the strait can override the common judicial system. Therefore, it can be said that there are no precedents to follow in the practice of interregional judicial assistance in China. The transfer of criminals (also known as transfer of sentenced persons) is a form of interregional mutual legal assistance, which refers to a mutual legal assistance activity in which an alien is transferred back to his or her country of nationality after violating the criminal law of another country and having been tried and sentenced to a sentence in that country. In fact, it is a manifestation of the recognition and enforcement of foreign criminal judgments. The sentenced State transfers the offender tried in that State to another State (generally the State of nationality of the offender) to serve its sentence in order to enable the offender to serve his sentence in a life or social environment he is familiar with, and to be more easily visited and cared for by relatives and friends, etc., To eliminate the differences in living habits, cultural, linguistic and psychological barriers encountered by criminals serving their sentences abroad, although there is no language barrier between the two sides of the Taiwan Strait, and it is usually possible to communicate in Mandarin. However, Taiwanese serving their sentences in the mainland or mainland Chinese serving their sentences in Taiwan still produce a sense of isolation and different living habits. Therefore, the realization of the transfer of criminals between the two sides of the strait is still conducive to the re-education and re-reform of criminals, to adapt to social life as soon as possible after their release from prison, and to conform to the spirit of humanitarianism. This article takes mutual legal assistance in criminal matters as the starting point, through drawing lessons from the principles and practices of international criminal transfer, and expounding the current situation of the mainland of China and the Hong Kong and Macao Special Administrative region, and explores how to solve the problem of criminal transfer on both sides of the Taiwan Strait. In turn, the two sides of the strait to combat crime. Although the two sides have signed the "Agreement on Combating Crime and Mutual legal Assistance between the two sides of the Taiwan Strait", the agreement is in conflict with Article 75 of the Taiwan and mainland people's Relations regulations. Article 10 of our criminal law negates the criminal judgment of other countries or regions. So more than two years after the agreement was signed, there was only one successful case of criminal transfer on both sides of the strait, due to the serious illness of the party concerned.
【學(xué)位授予單位】：中國(guó)政法大學(xué)
【學(xué)位級(jí)別】：碩士
【學(xué)位授予年份】：2011
【分類號(hào)】：D924;D997

【參考文獻(xiàn)】

相關(guān)期刊論文 前10條

1 劉志偉,左堅(jiān)衛(wèi);外國(guó)被判刑人移管的原則、條件及程序研討[J];北京科技大學(xué)學(xué)報(bào)(社會(huì)科學(xué)版);2003年01期

2 何智慧;論中國(guó)開(kāi)展區(qū)際司法協(xié)助的前提、障礙與可能性[J];重慶工學(xué)院學(xué)報(bào);2001年03期

3 彭思彬;;民間途徑參與兩岸司法協(xié)助之進(jìn)路[J];重慶科技學(xué)院學(xué)報(bào)(社會(huì)科學(xué)版);2010年10期

4 劉道倫;;兩岸共同打擊犯罪存在的問(wèn)題及對(duì)策[J];福建法學(xué);2009年01期

5 陳雷;王君祥;;從《金門協(xié)議》到《海峽兩岸共同打擊犯罪和司法互助協(xié)議》[J];福建法學(xué);2009年03期

6 蔡杰;婁超;;海峽兩岸刑事司法協(xié)助問(wèn)題再研究——寫(xiě)在《反分裂國(guó)家法》施行后[J];福建公安高等專科學(xué)校學(xué)報(bào);2006年01期

7 陳茂華;;關(guān)于《海峽兩岸共同打擊犯罪及司法互助協(xié)議》的法律解讀[J];福建警察學(xué)院學(xué)報(bào);2009年06期

8 唐榮智,陶旭東,李阿吉;海峽兩岸司法協(xié)助研究──之兩岸司法協(xié)助的范圍[J];福建政法管理干部學(xué)院學(xué)報(bào);2000年02期

9 尹立菊;;論聯(lián)合國(guó)關(guān)于囚犯移管的模式協(xié)定體系[J];法制與社會(huì);2010年28期

10 黃伯青;朱姝燕;;劫機(jī)犯王志華不應(yīng)受雙重審判——兼談刑事訴訟移管和已決犯移管[J];法治研究;2009年12期

相關(guān)碩士學(xué)位論文 前1條

1 王賀;關(guān)于我國(guó)區(qū)際刑事司法協(xié)助的若干問(wèn)題的思考[D];中國(guó)政法大學(xué);2004年

，

本文編號(hào)：1926426