本文關(guān)鍵詞： 司法改革 刑事協(xié)商 辯訴交易 認(rèn)罪協(xié)商程序 量刑協(xié)商　出處：《廣州大學(xué)》2017年碩士論文　論文類型：學(xué)位論文

【摘要】：刑事認(rèn)罪協(xié)商程序是一項(xiàng)發(fā)軔于美國(guó)的協(xié)商性司法制度,其典型體現(xiàn)為辯訴交易,即犯罪嫌疑人或被告人以積極認(rèn)罪、誠(chéng)心悔過(guò)為前提,從而換取司法機(jī)關(guān)在刑罰上的讓步。在司法負(fù)荷的壓力下,可以說(shuō)世界各國(guó)所面臨的困境具有一致性,盡管協(xié)商性司法模式本身具有爭(zhēng)議性,但并未妨礙越來(lái)越多的國(guó)家為有效疏緩司法之困境,開(kāi)始積極的以美國(guó)的辯訴交易為借鏡,從而建構(gòu)本國(guó)的刑事認(rèn)罪協(xié)商程序�？梢哉f(shuō),認(rèn)罪協(xié)商模式現(xiàn)已成為世界范圍內(nèi)重要的司法實(shí)踐活動(dòng),也必將是未來(lái)刑事司法的發(fā)展趨勢(shì)之所在。我國(guó)刑事訴訟法中并未明文確立認(rèn)罪協(xié)商程序,雖然在某些程序設(shè)計(jì),如刑事和解程序中有進(jìn)行認(rèn)罪協(xié)商的積極因素存在,但都難以稱之為嚴(yán)格意義上的認(rèn)罪協(xié)商程序。當(dāng)下我國(guó)正在進(jìn)行新一輪的司法改革,無(wú)論是現(xiàn)在所開(kāi)展的刑事速裁程序工作還是進(jìn)行認(rèn)罪認(rèn)罰從寬制度工作,皆已表明當(dāng)下我國(guó)正欲積極的建構(gòu)獨(dú)立的刑事認(rèn)罪協(xié)商程序。本文認(rèn)為,相比于傳統(tǒng)審判程序之正義的顯性化表達(dá),刑事認(rèn)罪協(xié)商程序則是透過(guò)控訴及答辯的彈性而以較為隱性的方式來(lái)達(dá)成司法正義,兩者在本質(zhì)上并無(wú)不同,都是將司法正義作為最終的價(jià)值追求。因此,刑事認(rèn)罪協(xié)商程序具有正當(dāng)性基礎(chǔ),并且在當(dāng)下我國(guó)司法改革的背景下有必要構(gòu)建刑事認(rèn)罪協(xié)商程序。據(jù)此,本文在借鑒國(guó)外刑事認(rèn)罪協(xié)商程序的基礎(chǔ)上,并結(jié)合我國(guó)司法改革的大背景,進(jìn)而提出了構(gòu)建刑事認(rèn)罪協(xié)商程序的具體構(gòu)想。本文之正文共有六個(gè)部分,具體如下:第一章主要是提出問(wèn)題,即刑事認(rèn)罪協(xié)商程序本為具有爭(zhēng)議性的制度,我國(guó)在推進(jìn)司法改革的當(dāng)下如何在在遵循司法規(guī)律、兼顧司法公正與訴訟效率的前提下,以現(xiàn)有的刑事法律制度框架為基礎(chǔ)構(gòu)建體系化的、適合中國(guó)國(guó)情的刑事認(rèn)罪協(xié)商程序。第二章主要是指出司法正義是刑事認(rèn)罪協(xié)商程序的本質(zhì),其獲正當(dāng)性的理論支撐包括訴訟效率理論、基本權(quán)利放棄理論、功利主義價(jià)值理論以及目的刑罰論等。第三章主要是從比較法的視角闡述了美國(guó)、英國(guó)、德國(guó)以及意大利的刑事認(rèn)罪協(xié)商程序,以期對(duì)我國(guó)構(gòu)建刑事認(rèn)罪協(xié)商程序有所借鑒。第四章主要是對(duì)當(dāng)下我國(guó)司法改革中與刑事認(rèn)罪協(xié)商程序關(guān)系較為密切的相關(guān)制度進(jìn)行具體考察分析。第五章主要是從現(xiàn)代型刑事犯罪的特征、審判中心主義、司法員額制改革以及司法人權(quán)保障的角度論述我國(guó)構(gòu)建刑事認(rèn)罪協(xié)商程序的必要性。第六章則是以當(dāng)下推進(jìn)司法改革為基本的著眼點(diǎn),從適用范圍、參與主體、具體協(xié)商內(nèi)容、程序進(jìn)行以及程序救濟(jì)等方面對(duì)刑事認(rèn)罪協(xié)商程序的具體構(gòu)架提出基本設(shè)想。
[Abstract]:The negotiation procedure of criminal plea is a consultative judicial system originating from the United States, and its typical manifestation is plea bargaining, that is, the criminal suspect or defendant takes active confession and sincere repentance as the premise. Under the pressure of judicial burden, it can be said that the dilemma faced by countries all over the world is consistent, although the consultative judicial model itself is controversial. However, it has not prevented more and more countries from actively using the plea bargaining of the United States as a model to construct their own criminal plea bargaining procedures in order to effectively ease the difficulties of the administration of justice. Plea bargaining mode has become an important judicial practice in the world, and will certainly be the development trend of criminal justice in the future. The plea bargaining procedure is not explicitly established in China's criminal procedure law, although some procedures are designed. For example, there are positive factors in the process of criminal reconciliation, but it is difficult to call it the plea bargaining procedure in the strict sense. At present, China is carrying out a new round of judicial reform. Both the criminal fast-adjudication procedure and the leniency system of guilty plea and punishment have indicated that our country is now actively trying to construct an independent criminal plea negotiation procedure. Compared with the explicit expression of justice in the traditional trial procedure, the criminal plea negotiation procedure achieves judicial justice in a more implicit way through the flexibility of complaint and defense, and there is no difference in essence between the two. Therefore, the procedure of criminal plea bargaining has the basis of legitimacy, and it is necessary to construct the negotiation procedure of criminal plea under the background of judicial reform in our country. On the basis of foreign criminal plea bargaining procedure and the background of judicial reform in our country, this paper puts forward the concrete conception of constructing criminal plea bargaining procedure. There are six parts in the text of this paper. The first chapter is mainly to raise questions, that is, the criminal plea bargaining procedure is a controversial system, how to promote the current judicial reform in accordance with the law of justice, judicial justice and efficiency of the premise, On the basis of the existing criminal legal system framework, the author constructs a systematized criminal plea bargaining procedure suitable for China's national conditions. The second chapter mainly points out that judicial justice is the essence of criminal plea negotiation procedure. The theoretical support of its legitimacy includes the theory of litigation efficiency, the theory of renunciation of basic rights, the theory of utilitarian value and the theory of purpose and penalty. Chapter three mainly expounds the United States and Britain from the perspective of comparative law. Criminal plea negotiation procedures in Germany and Italy, In order to construct the criminal plea negotiation procedure in our country some reference. 4th chapter is mainly to carry on the concrete investigation and analysis to the related system which is closely related to the criminal plea negotiation procedure in the current judicial reform of our country. 5th chapter main. From the characteristics of modern criminal offences, From the point of view of judicial centralism, judicial post system reform and judicial human rights guarantee, this paper discusses the necessity of constructing criminal plea bargaining procedure in China. Chapter 6th focuses on the current judicial reform and participates in the subject from the scope of application. The concrete negotiation content, the procedure and the procedure relief put forward the basic idea to the concrete frame of the criminal plea negotiation procedure.
【學(xué)位授予單位】：廣州大學(xué)
【學(xué)位級(jí)別】：碩士
【學(xué)位授予年份】：2017
【分類號(hào)】：D925.2

【參考文獻(xiàn)】

相關(guān)期刊論文 前10條

1 李衛(wèi)紅;;刑事和解的實(shí)體性與程序性[J];政法論壇;2017年02期

2 陳瑞華;;“認(rèn)罪認(rèn)罰從寬”改革的理論反思——基于刑事速裁程序運(yùn)行經(jīng)驗(yàn)的考察[J];當(dāng)代法學(xué);2016年04期

3 陳衛(wèi)東;;認(rèn)罪認(rèn)罰從寬制度研究[J];中國(guó)法學(xué);2016年02期

4 陳永生;白冰;;法官、檢察官員額制改革的限度[J];比較法研究;2016年02期

5 孫志偉;;意大利認(rèn)罪協(xié)商程序及其對(duì)刑事案件速裁程序的啟示[J];河北法學(xué);2016年04期

6 姜濤;蔣國(guó)強(qiáng);;庭審中心主義視域下的檢察制度改革[J];河北法學(xué);2016年01期

7 蔣銀華;;司法改革的人權(quán)之維——以“訴訟爆炸”為視角的分析[J];法學(xué)評(píng)論;2015年06期

8 張建偉;;審判中心主義的實(shí)質(zhì)內(nèi)涵與實(shí)現(xiàn)途徑[J];中外法學(xué);2015年04期

9 陳超;;權(quán)利主導(dǎo)模式下的意大利刑事特別程序研究[J];河南財(cái)經(jīng)政法大學(xué)學(xué)報(bào);2015年03期

10 衛(wèi)磊;;當(dāng)代刑事政策發(fā)展的實(shí)踐路徑——以刑法司法解釋為視角[J];華東政法大學(xué)學(xué)報(bào);2013年04期

，

本文編號(hào)：1531720