本文選題：犯罪嫌疑人　切入點(diǎn)：證據(jù)知悉權(quán)　出處：《西南財(cái)經(jīng)大學(xué)》2014年碩士論文

【摘要】：犯罪嫌疑人證據(jù)知悉權(quán)就是指犯罪嫌疑人有權(quán)獲得與自己案件相關(guān)的證據(jù)信息。證據(jù)知悉權(quán)是犯罪嫌疑人一項(xiàng)重要的權(quán)利,是其有效行使辯護(hù)權(quán)的前提和基礎(chǔ)。而我國(guó)目前仍然沒(méi)有明確犯罪嫌疑人有證據(jù)知悉權(quán)。導(dǎo)致在司法實(shí)踐中,大多數(shù)犯罪嫌疑人將來(lái)不能有效維護(hù)自身合法權(quán)益。 本文采用了理論聯(lián)系實(shí)際和比較的方式進(jìn)行研究。一方面對(duì)西方國(guó)家就犯罪嫌疑人證據(jù)知悉權(quán)進(jìn)行考察,另一方面對(duì)我國(guó)立法現(xiàn)狀和司法現(xiàn)狀進(jìn)行考察,比較得出我國(guó)與西方國(guó)家的差距以及我國(guó)又不能照搬西方模式的原因,希望能夠?qū)ξ覈?guó)完善犯罪嫌疑人證據(jù)知悉權(quán)的立法有意義。 本文正文分為五個(gè)部分。 第一章描述了犯罪嫌疑人證據(jù)知悉權(quán)的理論基礎(chǔ)。以1963年美國(guó)布雷迪起訴馬里蘭謀殺案件引發(fā)出英美國(guó)家對(duì)犯罪嫌疑人證據(jù)知悉權(quán)的保障方式、對(duì)我國(guó)犯罪嫌疑人證據(jù)知悉權(quán)問(wèn)題的思考以及犯罪嫌疑人證據(jù)知悉權(quán)的理論基礎(chǔ)、性質(zhì)和與相關(guān)概念的區(qū)別。 第二章是對(duì)犯罪嫌疑人證據(jù)知悉權(quán)的中外比較分析。結(jié)合我國(guó)犯罪嫌疑人證據(jù)知悉權(quán)的立法現(xiàn)狀和司法實(shí)踐現(xiàn)狀與域外有關(guān)犯罪嫌疑人證據(jù)知悉權(quán)的規(guī)定進(jìn)行比較分析。 第三章是對(duì)我國(guó)犯罪嫌疑人證據(jù)知悉權(quán)的立法缺陷及成因進(jìn)行分析。本章包括兩個(gè)方面。一是,我國(guó)犯罪嫌疑人證據(jù)知悉權(quán)的立法缺陷,分別從現(xiàn)階段犯罪嫌疑人獲得證據(jù)方式的缺陷、用作證據(jù)的鑒定意見(jiàn)的告知存在的缺陷和辯護(hù)律師向犯罪嫌疑人核實(shí)有關(guān)證據(jù)存在的缺陷進(jìn)行分析。二是,立法缺陷的原因。分別從向犯罪嫌疑人展示證據(jù)存在隱患、律師的職業(yè)道德問(wèn)題以及閱卷爭(zhēng)議的裁決權(quán)掌握在控方手里存在的問(wèn)題進(jìn)行分析。 第四章我國(guó)現(xiàn)階段不能適用證據(jù)開(kāi)示制度的原因及犯罪嫌疑人證據(jù)知悉權(quán)的可行性。本章通過(guò)對(duì)我國(guó)證據(jù)制度、法官中立性和訴訟模式的分析得出現(xiàn)階段不能建立證據(jù)開(kāi)示制度的結(jié)論以及目前較為適合賦予建立犯罪嫌疑人證據(jù)知悉權(quán)的原因。 第五章對(duì)我國(guó)犯罪嫌疑人證據(jù)知悉權(quán)的完善建議。分別從有、無(wú)辯護(hù)律師的犯罪嫌疑人證據(jù)知悉權(quán)的保障、鑒定意見(jiàn)的告知、對(duì)證人的保護(hù)制度以及對(duì)侵犯犯罪嫌疑人證據(jù)知悉權(quán)的救濟(jì)方面提出建議。
[Abstract]:The right to know the evidence of a criminal suspect means that the suspect has the right to obtain evidence information related to his case. The right to know the evidence is an important right of the suspect. It is the premise and foundation of its effective exercise of the right to defense. However, at present, our country still has no clear criminal suspects have the right to know the evidence. As a result, in the judicial practice, most suspects can not effectively safeguard their legitimate rights and interests in the future. On the one hand, this paper studies the right of criminal suspects to know evidence in western countries, on the other hand, it investigates the current legislative and judicial situation of our country. By comparing the gap between China and western countries and the reason why our country can not copy the western model, it is hoped that it will be meaningful to improve the legislation of criminal suspects' right of knowing evidence. The text of this paper is divided into five parts. The first chapter describes the theoretical basis of suspect's right to know evidence. In 1963, American Brady sued Maryland murder case, which caused the British and American countries to guarantee the suspect's right to know evidence. This paper discusses the problem of suspect's right to know evidence in our country, and the theoretical basis, nature and difference with related concepts of the right of criminal suspect's right to know evidence. The second chapter is a comparative analysis of the criminal suspects' right to know evidence, combining the legislative status and judicial practice of the right of criminal suspects to know evidence, and the provisions of the right of criminal suspects to know evidence outside the country. The third chapter is to analyze the legislative defects and causes of the criminal suspects' right to know evidence. This chapter includes two aspects. First, the legislative defects of the right of criminal suspects to know the evidence. The defects in the way the criminal suspect obtains evidence at this stage, the defects existing in the notification of the appraisal opinions used as evidence and the defects of the defense counsel verifying the evidence to the criminal suspect are analyzed respectively. Second, The reasons of the legislative defects are analyzed from showing the hidden dangers of the evidence to the criminal suspects, the professional ethics of the lawyers and the power to judge the disputes in the hands of the prosecution. Chapter IV: the reasons why the system of discovery of evidence cannot be applied in our country at this stage and the feasibility of the right to know evidence of criminal suspects. The analysis of the neutrality of the judge and the mode of litigation draws the conclusion that the system of discovery of evidence cannot be established at the present stage and the reasons why it is more suitable to grant the right to know the evidence of the criminal suspect at present. The fifth chapter is about the perfection of the right to know the evidence of the suspect in our country. From the protection of the right to know the evidence of the suspect with and without defense counsel, and the notification of the appraisal opinion, Suggestions on witness protection system and remedies for violation of suspect's right to know evidence are put forward.
【學(xué)位授予單位】：西南財(cái)經(jīng)大學(xué)
【學(xué)位級(jí)別】：碩士
【學(xué)位授予年份】：2014
【分類號(hào)】：D925.2

【參考文獻(xiàn)】

相關(guān)期刊論文 前5條

1 陳捷;;域外被追訴人知悉權(quán)規(guī)定之比較研究[J];法制與經(jīng)濟(jì)(下旬);2011年02期

2 曾國(guó)勇;陳捷;;試論我國(guó)被追訴人知悉權(quán)之完善[J];法制與經(jīng)濟(jì)(中旬刊);2010年12期

3 劉作凌;劉學(xué)敏;;論被追訴人本人的閱卷權(quán)[J];法學(xué)論壇;2012年05期

4 韓旭;;刑事訴訟中被追訴人及其家屬證據(jù)知悉權(quán)研究[J];現(xiàn)代法學(xué);2009年05期

5 宋英輝,李哲;庭審前程序中辯護(hù)律師信息知悉權(quán)的保障——兼談我國(guó)刑事證據(jù)信息交換制度的構(gòu)建[J];浙江工商大學(xué)學(xué)報(bào);2005年04期

，

本文編號(hào)：1671349