本文選題：庭審微博直播 + 審判公開　； 參考：《華東政法大學(xué)》2015年碩士論文

【摘要】：庭審微博直播是近幾年法院利用新媒體進行審判公開實踐的新產(chǎn)物。2013年薄熙來案利用微博直播庭審,因其案情重大敏感但公開程度和范圍超乎預(yù)期,引起國內(nèi)外的廣泛關(guān)注,被譽為審判公開實踐中的“里程碑”。庭審微博直播在一定程度上彰顯了我國司法公開的實踐成果,進一步保障了公眾旁聽權(quán)、知情權(quán)和監(jiān)督權(quán)。但結(jié)合刑事訴訟審判公開原則、嚴(yán)格遵守法律程序原則、保障訴訟參與人依法享有訴訟權(quán)利原則等基本原則,并分析《刑事訴訟法》相關(guān)條文,可看出庭審微博直播存在刪減直播內(nèi)容、提前公開庭審筆錄、剝奪當(dāng)事人、證人查閱庭審筆錄訴訟權(quán)利等程序性弊端。本文共分為三大部分,闡述庭審微博直播的積極訴訟價值和程序性弊端,分析出現(xiàn)程序性弊端的原因,并探討如何將庭審微博直播合理有效地運用于審判公開實踐,同時提出風(fēng)險防范措施和構(gòu)建科學(xué)的庭審微博直播制度的相關(guān)建議。第一部分庭審微博直播的概述:我國立法中對庭審微博直播的案件范圍和主體的規(guī)定主要集中于法庭紀(jì)律和庭審直播的相關(guān)規(guī)定中,除經(jīng)法院許可的新聞記者外,只有法院是庭審微博直播的適格主體。在司法實踐中,微博直播庭審的探索始于2011年,到2014年底全國已形成四級法院微博體系,微博直播庭審得到普遍推廣。學(xué)界對微博直播庭審的評價褒貶不一。有肯定評述認(rèn)為,庭審微博直播直觀、開放,加大審判公開力度,保障公眾知情權(quán)和旁聽權(quán),并在直播過程中與公眾互動交流,兼具普法警示意義。但有否定的觀點認(rèn)為,庭審筆錄不應(yīng)提前公開,微博直播庭審的文字?jǐn)?shù)量與庭審時間不成比例,有些“特別內(nèi)容”遭刪減并未公布上網(wǎng)。與網(wǎng)絡(luò)視頻直播相比,庭審微博直播內(nèi)容完整度和資源利用率均處劣勢,應(yīng)限制其在審判公開實踐中的使用。從程序法角度看,庭審微博直播有其積極訴訟價值。司法與新媒體創(chuàng)造性結(jié)合,創(chuàng)設(shè)了審判公開新形式,加大庭審公開的力度,促進了司法公開透明,提升了司法公信力。同時,借助微博平臺權(quán)威發(fā)布證人證言、控方相關(guān)物證,開創(chuàng)了審訊錄音錄像當(dāng)庭播放的先河。以微博作為雙向溝通平臺也為公眾監(jiān)督庭審?fù)貙捔送緩�。第二部分庭審微博直播的程序性弊端及其成因分�?在審判公開方面,庭審微博直播文字記錄不詳盡,內(nèi)容不完整,在公布上網(wǎng)前進行三層審核,內(nèi)容被刪減;微博直播與庭審現(xiàn)場存在較大時間差。在訴訟參與人權(quán)利保障方面,微博直播庭審將庭審筆錄公布上網(wǎng)前,未經(jīng)當(dāng)事人和證人閱讀簽字確認(rèn),有違《刑事訴訟法》第二百零一條的規(guī)定,剝奪了訴訟參與人查閱筆錄、申請補正庭審筆錄的權(quán)利。在程序法定方面,庭審筆錄提前公布上網(wǎng),審判長閱簽筆錄的程序無從實現(xiàn),不符合程序法定原則。上述做法將導(dǎo)致庭審筆錄在刑事訴訟中的作用難以發(fā)揮。在公眾知情權(quán)保障方面,客觀條件允許視聽直播的前提下創(chuàng)設(shè)微博直播,使場外旁聽庭審與現(xiàn)場旁聽庭審的內(nèi)容不一致,不利于保障公眾旁聽權(quán)的平等實現(xiàn)。究其原因,客觀上是由于新媒體時代背景下的司法環(huán)境變化,輿論形成機制變化,法院反饋機制滯后,對涉法輿論管控制衡難,使法院輿論壓力加大。主觀上,司法人員審判公開理念的權(quán)力主導(dǎo)性過強,存在將審判公開當(dāng)作特權(quán)的認(rèn)識誤區(qū);面對公信力走低的局面存在不自信心理,為避免爭議而無奈做出選擇性公開的做法,對新媒體產(chǎn)生錯誤防范意識。此外,微博本身篇幅小,內(nèi)容完整客觀程度不如庭審網(wǎng)絡(luò)視頻直播,且微博直播庭審人力物力投入大,這些特點決定其不宜作為庭審直播的單一手段。第三部分庭審微博直播的程序性規(guī)制思路與舉措:庭審微博直播的適用前提是與三大公開平臺的有機銜接,實現(xiàn)庭審直播的高度公開,正面“迎對”輿論和媒體。適用庭審微博直播,應(yīng)秉持限制使用、內(nèi)容公開、權(quán)利保障的原則。案件直播以庭審網(wǎng)絡(luò)視頻直播為主,限制微博直播的使用,僅在客觀條件限制或法律規(guī)定限制公開而無法實現(xiàn)網(wǎng)絡(luò)視頻直播的情況下,允許運用微博作為單一直播手段。直播過程力求透明、主導(dǎo)輿情,兼顧回應(yīng)疏導(dǎo)負(fù)面輿論,注重公眾旁聽權(quán)、監(jiān)督權(quán)的保障,注重當(dāng)事人、證人確認(rèn)和申請修改筆錄權(quán)利的保障,兼顧當(dāng)事人私權(quán),把握審判公開邊界。在構(gòu)建庭審微博直播專門小組制度過程中,形成上下級微博信息聯(lián)動會議合作機制,做好輿情監(jiān)測研判和吸納引導(dǎo)。建立規(guī)范的庭審微博直播執(zhí)行標(biāo)準(zhǔn),注重專門人員專項培訓(xùn)與普通法官常規(guī)培訓(xùn)相結(jié)合,將微博直播納入司法公開考評指標(biāo),建立公眾雙向互評機制,提升社會溝通能力。同時出臺輿情控制和意外應(yīng)急預(yù)案,并賦予相關(guān)利益主體庭審微博直播異議權(quán)、上訴權(quán)和申訴權(quán)。
[Abstract]:The court trial micro-blog live broadcast is the new product of the court in recent years using the new media to carry out the trial public practice of the new product.2013 Bo Xilai case using the micro-blog live court, because of its sensitivity to the case, but the extent and scope of beyond expectation, caused widespread concern at home and abroad, is known as the "milestone" in the trial public practice. The trial of the trial of micro-blog live in the one. In a certain degree, it highlights the practical results of the public judicature in China, and further guarantees the public hearing right, the right to know and the right to supervise. But it can be seen that the basic principles such as the principle of public criminal procedure trial, strict compliance with the principles of legal procedure, and the principle of protecting the litigant rights according to law, and the analysis of the relevant provisions of the criminal procedure law, can be seen. There are three main parts of the trial of the trial of micro-blog live, including the deletion of the live content, the opening of the court record in advance, the deprivation of the procedural rights of the witness and the litigation right of the court trial. This article is divided into three parts, which are the active litigation value and the procedural malpractice of the court hearing micro-blog live, and the reasons for the procedural malpractice and the discussion of how to judge the trial of the micro-blog. The live broadcast is reasonably and effectively used in the trial public practice, at the same time, it puts forward the relevant suggestions for the risk prevention measures and the construction of the scientific trial of the micro-blog live broadcast system. The first part of the trial of the micro-blog live broadcast: the scope of the case and the main body of the case of the trial of the trial of the trial of micro-blog in our country should focus on the court discipline and the direct seeding of the court trial. In the provisions, except for the journalists licensed by the court, only the court is the main body of the micro-blog live trial of the court trial. In the judicial practice, the exploration of the micro-blog live court began in 2011, and by the end of 2014, the whole country has formed the four grade court micro-blog system, and the micro-blog live trial has been popularized. The academic circles have different comments on the evaluation of the direct seeding trial of micro-blog. It is affirmed that the trial of micro-blog direct seeding is intuitive, open, open, open to the public, to protect the public's right to know and to listen to the public, and to interact with the public in the process of direct seeding. But there is a negative view that the trial record should not be open in advance, and the number of words of the micro-blog live court is not proportional to the time of the trial. Some "special contents" have been deleted and did not be published online. Compared with online video broadcast, the content integrity and resource utilization of the trial micro-blog live broadcast are all at a disadvantage. They should limit their use in the trial public practice. From the perspective of procedural law, the micro-blog live court has its active litigation value. The creation of the creative combination of judiciary and new media has been created. The new form of the trial, increasing the openness of the trial, promoted the openness and transparency of the judiciary and promoted the credibility of the judiciary. At the same time, with the authority of the micro-blog platform to publish the witness testimony and the relevant evidence of the prosecution, it pioneered the trial of the hearing of the hearing and video recording in court. As a two-way communication platform, micro-blog has also widened the way for public supervision. The two part of the procedural abuse of the micro-blog live broadcast and its cause analysis: in the open trial, the micro-blog broadcast text records are not detailed and the content is incomplete, the three layers of audit before the publication of the Internet, the content has been cut down; there is a big time difference between the live broadcast of micro-blog and the court trial. In the case of the rights protection of the litigation participants, the trial of the micro-blog live is trial. The publication of the court proceedings before the Internet, without reading the signature of the parties and witnesses, has violated the provisions of the 201st article of the criminal procedure law, depriving the participants of the proceedings to check the record and applying for the right to correct the court proceedings. According to the principle of legal procedure, the above practice will lead to the difficult role of the court hearing in the criminal proceedings. In the protection of the public's right to know, the objective conditions permit the creation of the micro-blog live broadcast on the premise of audio-visual live broadcast, which makes the outside hearing court trial and the scene hearing trial content inconsistent, which is not conducive to the guarantee of the equal realization of the public's right to hear. The reason is because of the change of judicial environment in the background of the new media era, the change of the mechanism of public opinion, the lagging of the feedback mechanism of the court, the control and balance of the law public opinion management, the pressure of the public opinion of the court. In the face of the lack of confidence in the situation of low public credibility, in order to avoid the dispute, it is helpless to make a selective and open approach to the new media. In addition, the micro-blog itself is small, the content is not as complete and objective as the video broadcast of the court trial network, and the human resources and material resources of the micro-blog live court are large. These characteristics decide it is not suitable. As a single means of direct seeding of the court trial. The third part of the procedural rules and measures for the trial of micro-blog live, the applicable premise of the trial of the court hearing micro-blog live is the organic connection with the three public platforms, the realization of the high public view of the court hearing, the positive "welcome to" the public opinion and the media. The application of the court trial of the live broadcast of micro-blog should be restricted and the content should be open, The principle of right guarantee. The direct seeding of the case is mainly based on the weblive broadcast of the court trial. It restricts the use of the live broadcast of micro-blog. It is allowed to use micro-blog as a single direct seeding only when the objective conditions are limited or the legal restrictions are open and the network video is not broadcast. The direct seeding process is transparent, the public opinion is dominated, and the negative guidance is given to the negative guidance. Public opinion, pay attention to the right of public hearing, the right to supervision, pay attention to the protection of the parties, the witness confirmation and the application of the right to modify the written record, take account of the private rights of the parties and grasp the open boundary of the trial. In the process of building a special group system of the micro-blog live broadcast of the court trial, the cooperation mechanism of the joint meeting of the micro-blog information and interest is formed. To establish a standardized implementation standard of micro-blog live broadcast, pay attention to the special training of special personnel and regular training of ordinary judges, integrate the micro-blog live broadcast into the public evaluation index, establish the public two-way mutual evaluation mechanism and improve the social communication ability. At the same time, the public opinion control system and contingency plan are introduced, and the relevant stakeholders are given. Judge the right of objection to the micro-blog live broadcast, the right of appeal and the right to appeal.

【學(xué)位授予單位】：華東政法大學(xué)
【學(xué)位級別】：碩士
【學(xué)位授予年份】：2015
【分類號】：D926.2;D925.2

【參考文獻(xiàn)】

相關(guān)期刊論文 前1條

1 北京市第一中級人民法院課題組;王明達(dá);吳在存;;關(guān)于加強司法公開建設(shè)的調(diào)研報告[J];人民司法;2009年05期

，

本文編號：1882295