本文選題：當(dāng)事人和解　切入點(diǎn)：特別程序　出處：《華南理工大學(xué)》2014年碩士論文　論文類(lèi)型：學(xué)位論文

【摘要】：隨著修改后刑事訴訟法的實(shí)施，我國(guó)的刑事和解程序?qū)嵺`探索以“當(dāng)事人和解的公訴案件訴訟程序”為專(zhuān)節(jié)予以明確規(guī)定，并在司法實(shí)踐中開(kāi)始實(shí)施。立法者出于審慎立法的考慮，因此修改后的刑事訴訟法對(duì)當(dāng)事人和解的公訴案件程序的規(guī)定非常簡(jiǎn)單，只用了三條法律條文對(duì)公訴案件當(dāng)事人和解的適用條件、和解協(xié)議的制作和和解協(xié)議的法律效果等方面進(jìn)行了規(guī)定�！皟筛咭徊俊彪m分別針對(duì)該程序制定了30個(gè)相對(duì)細(xì)化的、具有一定操作性的規(guī)定，但有關(guān)和解制度實(shí)施中的法律規(guī)定依然存在單薄簡(jiǎn)陋、矛盾沖突、缺失空白等問(wèn)題。具體體現(xiàn)在沒(méi)有規(guī)定和解適用的基本原則，和解適用的條件不明確，和解的內(nèi)容和方式單一，和解的法律后果與其他法律規(guī)范存在沖突等問(wèn)題。上述問(wèn)題不解決，將影響到當(dāng)事人和解制度立法初衷的實(shí)現(xiàn)，也會(huì)給司法實(shí)務(wù)部門(mén)帶來(lái)困惑和兩難，影響執(zhí)法辦案的實(shí)際效果和法律的統(tǒng)一正確實(shí)施。 本文從解讀當(dāng)事人和解的公訴案件訴訟程序法律條文出發(fā)，，著重評(píng)介修改后刑事訴訟法、最高法關(guān)于《適用中華人民共和國(guó)刑事訴訟法的解釋》（以下簡(jiǎn)稱(chēng)《高法解釋》）、最高檢《人民檢察院刑事訴訟規(guī)則》（以下簡(jiǎn)稱(chēng)《高檢規(guī)則》）、公安部《公安機(jī)關(guān)辦理刑事案件程序規(guī)定》（以下簡(jiǎn)稱(chēng)《公安部規(guī)定》）等四個(gè)法律文本中關(guān)于當(dāng)事人和解公訴案件訴訟程序的規(guī)定，對(duì)各法律文本之間規(guī)定的沖突、法律文本與司法實(shí)踐的沖突、法律規(guī)范對(duì)重大事項(xiàng)規(guī)定的遺漏等問(wèn)題進(jìn)行分析，結(jié)合司法工作實(shí)踐和各地有益的司法探索及國(guó)外恢復(fù)性司法措施的成功經(jīng)驗(yàn)，提出立法建議，確保當(dāng)事人和解制度得到有效實(shí)施，取得預(yù)期效果。
[Abstract]:With the implementation of the revised Criminal procedure Law, the practice of the criminal reconciliation procedure in our country explores that the specific section of "Proceedings of Public Prosecution cases for the settlement of the parties" is specifically stipulated. And began to implement it in judicial practice. The legislator, out of the consideration of careful legislation, therefore, the revised Criminal procedure Law provides very simple provisions on the procedure of public prosecution for the reconciliation of the parties. Only three legal provisions have been used to regulate the applicable conditions of reconciliation between the parties in a public prosecution case, the making of the settlement agreement and the legal effect of the settlement agreement. Although the "two higher and one ministries" have developed 30 relatively detailed ones for this procedure, There are some operational provisions, but the relevant legal provisions in the implementation of the reconciliation system still exist such problems as meanness, contradiction and conflict, lack of blank, etc., which are embodied in the absence of basic principles for the application of reconciliation. The conditions for the application of reconciliation are not clear, the content and method of reconciliation are single, the legal consequences of reconciliation are in conflict with other legal norms, and so on. If the above problems are not resolved, it will affect the realization of the original intention of the legislation of the reconciliation system of the parties. It will also bring confusion and dilemma to the judicial practice department, and affect the actual effect of law enforcement and the correct enforcement of the law. Based on the interpretation of the legal provisions of the procedural procedures in public prosecution cases, this paper focuses on the revised Criminal procedure Law. Interpretation of the Supreme Law on the Application of the Criminal procedure Law of the people's Republic of China (hereinafter referred to as the interpretation of the Supreme Law), the Supreme Procuratorate the rules of Criminal procedure of the people's Procuratorate (hereinafter referred to as the rules of High Procuratorate) and the Ministry of Public Security < Public Security organs. The provisions on the procedure for the settlement of public prosecution cases by the parties in four legal texts (hereinafter referred to as "the regulations of the Ministry of Public Security"), To analyze the conflicts between the legal texts, the conflicts between the legal texts and the judicial practice, and the omissions of the major provisions in the legal norms, Combining with the judicial practice and the beneficial judicial exploration and the successful experience of foreign restorative judicial measures, this paper puts forward some legislative suggestions to ensure the effective implementation of the system of reconciliation between the parties and obtains the expected results.
【學(xué)位授予單位】：華南理工大學(xué)
【學(xué)位級(jí)別】：碩士
【學(xué)位授予年份】：2014
【分類(lèi)號(hào)】：D925.2

【參考文獻(xiàn)】

相關(guān)期刊論文 前10條

1 廖明;;論刑事和解的客體[J];比較法研究;2010年05期

2 楊飛雪;;刑事和解在審判階段的制度構(gòu)建[J];重慶郵電大學(xué)學(xué)報(bào)(社會(huì)科學(xué)版);2009年06期

3 孫萬(wàn)懷;黃敏;;現(xiàn)代刑事司法和解精神的基礎(chǔ)[J];法學(xué);2006年04期

4 李洪亮;;檢察階段適用“刑事和解”問(wèn)題研究[J];法制與經(jīng)濟(jì)(下旬);2010年06期

5 吳專(zhuān)生;;審查逮捕階段不宜適用刑事和解的三個(gè)理由[J];法制與社會(huì);2009年30期

6 鄭曉偉;;檢察視角中的刑事和解制度[J];法制與社會(huì);2010年19期

7 陳衛(wèi)東;汪建成;宋英輝;;專(zhuān)家訪(fǎng)談:刑事和解的理論探討[J];中國(guó)檢察官;2009年01期

8 田金融;;對(duì)辦理當(dāng)事人達(dá)成和解刑事案件的認(rèn)識(shí)與思考[J];中國(guó)檢察官;2010年13期

9 謝鵬程;;刑事和解的理念與程序設(shè)計(jì)[J];人民檢察;2006年14期

10 陳國(guó)慶;;試論構(gòu)建中國(guó)式的認(rèn)罪協(xié)商制度[J];環(huán)球法律評(píng)論;2006年05期

本文編號(hào)：1576715