本文關(guān)鍵詞： 自訴 實(shí)證 調(diào)查 實(shí)驗(yàn) 調(diào)解 撤訴 和解　出處：《遼寧大學(xué)》2016年碩士論文　論文類型：學(xué)位論文

【摘要】：在現(xiàn)代社會(huì)中,各國(guó)的自訴制度都呈現(xiàn)一種式弱的趨勢(shì),這種衰微已經(jīng)是一個(gè)不爭(zhēng)的事實(shí),與此同時(shí),由于自訴的某些特征并不能完全被公訴完全取代,因此自訴制度在相當(dāng)長(zhǎng)的一段歷史時(shí)期內(nèi)還有不可替代性,至少現(xiàn)在還沒要找到合適的公訴自訴對(duì)接的方式,作為一種保護(hù)被害人合法權(quán)益的需要,自訴權(quán)利的行使主體是被害人,他們因?yàn)樗说那址感袨?導(dǎo)致了生理心理上諸多方面的受害,有權(quán)利追求對(duì)施害者的懲罰,公訴強(qiáng)調(diào)的是一種對(duì)整體利益的保護(hù)而自訴更強(qiáng)調(diào)對(duì)個(gè)體權(quán)益?zhèn)�體正義的維護(hù),同時(shí)自訴作為對(duì)公訴權(quán)以及公訴制度的一種補(bǔ)充,其監(jiān)督和制約作用凸顯,檢察官作為國(guó)家追訴犯罪的代表,其自身與案件并無利害關(guān)系,可能會(huì)在某些原因某些情況下怠于行使相關(guān)權(quán)力,而且由于所處的地位的不同,檢察人員多關(guān)注群體與社會(huì)利益,對(duì)于個(gè)體當(dāng)事人的關(guān)注較少。因此給予被害人更多自我救濟(jì)的途徑對(duì)于實(shí)現(xiàn)司法的公平正義有重要意義。加之,公訴權(quán)本身是一種官僚權(quán)利,可能在行使過程中難免機(jī)械死板形式主義,以自訴制度加以補(bǔ)充,能起到靈活應(yīng)對(duì)復(fù)雜多變的客觀情況的需要。然而我們還必須看到現(xiàn)今的自訴制度還有待完善,欲將保護(hù)公民權(quán)利充分行使的重任完整實(shí)現(xiàn),還需要立法與實(shí)踐的變革,本文欲通過一系列實(shí)證調(diào)研的數(shù)據(jù)來反應(yīng)實(shí)踐中自訴制度運(yùn)行的特點(diǎn),經(jīng)由這些數(shù)據(jù)所表現(xiàn)的情形,探究如何能在立法層面進(jìn)行變革,使該制度能更好發(fā)揮其應(yīng)有的效能,通過對(duì)刑事自訴案件受案情況,刑事自訴案件的類型,結(jié)案方式、結(jié)案情況,自訴人的舉證情況,自訴案件審理情況包括審限、審理方式等多角度,多數(shù)據(jù)的分析,力求真實(shí)還原刑事自訴制度的總體運(yùn)行樣貌,找到自訴制度設(shè)立所倡導(dǎo)的價(jià)值導(dǎo)向與實(shí)際操作間的差異,進(jìn)而完善刑事自訴制度。受篇幅和研究能力的限制,筆者僅提出了幾點(diǎn)與所調(diào)研數(shù)據(jù)相關(guān)的立法建議,包括針對(duì)自訴人舉證能力弱而提出的立案標(biāo)準(zhǔn)的放寬以及公權(quán)力協(xié)助機(jī)制,針對(duì)第三類自訴案件在實(shí)踐中極少適用建議立法取消第三類自訴案件,針對(duì)實(shí)際中自訴案件審限較長(zhǎng)提出進(jìn)一步規(guī)定自訴案件自己的獨(dú)有的審限等,希望通過筆者的辛勤努力,能夠取得拋磚引玉的作用,讓自訴制度這個(gè)頗有歷史韻味的制度更能在運(yùn)行中更充分發(fā)揮保護(hù)公民權(quán)利的作用。
[Abstract]:In modern society, the private prosecution system of all countries presents a kind of weak trend, this decline has been an indisputable fact, at the same time, because some characteristics of private prosecution can not be completely replaced by public prosecution. Therefore, the private prosecution system has been irreplaceable for quite a long period of time, at least not yet to find a suitable way of docking public prosecution, as a need to protect the legitimate rights and interests of the victims. The main body of the exercise of the right of private prosecution is the victim, and they have the right to pursue the punishment of the perpetrator because of the violation of others, resulting in many aspects of physical and psychological victimization. Public prosecution emphasizes the protection of the whole interests and private prosecution emphasizes the individual justice of individual rights and interests. At the same time, as a supplement to the public prosecution right and the public prosecution system, its supervision and restriction function is prominent. The prosecutor, as the representative of the State for prosecution of crimes, has no interest in the case itself and may, for some reason or other, be reluctant to exercise the relevant powers, and because of its different status, The procurator pays more attention to the interests of the group and the society, and pays less attention to the individual party. Therefore, it is of great significance to give more self-relief to the victim to realize the justice of justice. In addition, the right of public prosecution is a kind of bureaucratic right. It is possible that mechanically rigid formalism will inevitably occur in the course of exercise, supplemented by the private prosecution system, which can respond flexibly to the complex and changeable objective situation. However, we must also see that the present system of private prosecution still needs to be improved. In order to realize the task of protecting citizens' rights fully, we still need the reform of legislation and practice. This paper attempts to reflect the characteristics of the private prosecution system in practice through a series of empirical data, and through these data, we want to reflect the situation. To explore how to reform the system at the legislative level so that the system can better play its due effectiveness, through the criminal private prosecution cases, the types of criminal private prosecution cases, the way to close the case, the circumstances of the case, the case of private prosecution, The trial situation of private prosecution cases includes trial limit, trial method and so on, and the analysis of multi-data, in order to truly restore the overall operating appearance of the criminal private prosecution system, and find the difference between the value orientation advocated by the establishment of the private prosecution system and the actual operation. And then perfect the criminal private prosecution system. Limited by space and research ability, the author only put forward a few legislative suggestions related to the investigated data. Including the relaxation of filing standards and the mechanism of public power assistance for the weak ability of proof of private prosecution. In view of the third type of private prosecution cases rarely applied in practice, it is suggested that legislation should be applied to cancel the third category of private prosecution cases. In view of the longer trial limit of private prosecution cases in practice, it is hoped that through the author's hard work, the author will be able to make a contribution to the trial of private prosecution cases by further stipulating their own unique limits of adjudication. Let the private prosecution system, which has historical appeal, play the role of protecting the civil rights more fully in the operation.
【學(xué)位授予單位】：遼寧大學(xué)
【學(xué)位級(jí)別】：碩士
【學(xué)位授予年份】：2016
【分類號(hào)】：D925.2

【參考文獻(xiàn)】

相關(guān)期刊論文 前10條

1 郭爍;;論中國(guó)刑事強(qiáng)制措施體系的理想模式[J];蘇州大學(xué)學(xué)報(bào)(哲學(xué)社會(huì)科學(xué)版);2015年05期

2 董瀠;葛偉科;董娟娟;;刑事判決書中的量刑說理實(shí)證考察及建議[J];行政與法;2015年08期

3 付燁;;論宋慈的司法倫理形象及其啟示[J];法制博覽;2015年23期

4 李瑛;;論公安機(jī)關(guān)秘密偵查的法律規(guī)制[J];中國(guó)人民公安大學(xué)學(xué)報(bào)(社會(huì)科學(xué)版);2015年04期

5 竇萌萌;;準(zhǔn)確理解和適用逮捕條件研究[J];鄂州大學(xué)學(xué)報(bào);2015年08期

6 丁月;;臺(tái)灣地區(qū)的偵查權(quán)配置與刑事案件管理對(duì)大陸地區(qū)的啟示[J];江西警察學(xué)院學(xué)報(bào);2015年04期

7 趙夢(mèng)霞;;刑事偵查的成本收益分析及其理論應(yīng)用[J];法制與社會(huì);2015年21期

8 潘爽;;試論我國(guó)自訴制度的廢除[J];嘉興學(xué)院學(xué)報(bào);2014年04期

9 劉娜;賈宇;;網(wǎng)絡(luò)誹謗案中自訴人取證之公權(quán)力救濟(jì)[J];河南財(cái)經(jīng)政法大學(xué)學(xué)報(bào);2014年02期

10 吳夏倩;;輕微刑事案件的程序分流——以刑事和解與自訴程序的銜接為中心[J];湖北警官學(xué)院學(xué)報(bào);2013年09期

，

本文編號(hào)：1522921