本文選題：程序分流 + 酌定不起訴��； 參考：《南京大學(xué)》2017年碩士論文

【摘要】：黨的十八屆四中全會通過《中共中央關(guān)于全面推進(jìn)依法治國若干重大問題的決定》(以下簡稱《決定》),提出推進(jìn)以審判為中心的訴訟制度改革。"以審判為中心的訴訟制度改革"目的在于將刑事訴訟程序的重心由偵查環(huán)節(jié)轉(zhuǎn)變?yōu)閷徟协h(huán)節(jié),將偵查與起訴作為圍繞審判展開的支撐型工作,突出庭審的中心地位,解決"庭審虛化"問題,促進(jìn)庭審實質(zhì)化和規(guī)范化。鑒于司法資源的有限性,為促進(jìn)庭審的實質(zhì)化和規(guī)范化,突出審判的中心地位,必須根據(jù)案件的情況和特點建立有效的刑事程序分流機制。恰如陳曉東所言:"如果不顧刑事案件的復(fù)雜多樣而盲目地對每一案件都投入等量的司法資源,只會造成兩種后果:一是使那些簡單的案件毫無必要地經(jīng)歷了復(fù)雜的訴訟程序,造成訴訟資源的浪費;二是那些復(fù)雜的案件由于投入的司法資源相對不足而難以得到公平、正義的處理。" ①因此,在司法資源較為匱乏的前提之下,根據(jù)案件的具體情況分配相應(yīng)的司法資源,而不是讓每一個案件都機械地經(jīng)歷偵查、起訴以及審判三個階段,才是明智的選擇。也就是說,為實現(xiàn)"以審判為中心"的訴訟制度改革,必須對刑事案件在審前進(jìn)行科學(xué)的分流。從我國現(xiàn)狀來看,我國刑事訴訟奉行起訴法定主義原則,檢察機關(guān)自由裁量權(quán)空間狹小,弱化了公訴階段的程序分流功能。酌定不起訴和附條件不起訴制度在我國《刑事訴訟法》中都有明確規(guī)定,雖然這兩項制度是可以在審查起訴階段起到分流效果的制度,但是它們在司法實踐中存在諸多缺陷,未能充分發(fā)揮分流的功能。審查起訴階段是案件進(jìn)入審判前的最后一道關(guān)卡,法院審判案件的數(shù)量會因為這一階段的不起訴決定而實質(zhì)性地減少。因此,應(yīng)當(dāng)彌補現(xiàn)有制度的缺陷,以不起訴的形式對案件進(jìn)行審前分流,實現(xiàn)庭審實質(zhì)化,實現(xiàn)"以審判為中心"的改革目標(biāo)。本文分四部分對審查起訴階段程序分流機制進(jìn)行探討。第一部分介紹了我國現(xiàn)行刑事訴訟法中規(guī)定的在審查起訴階段具有分流功能的酌定不起訴制度與附條件不起訴制度,重點闡述了兩項制度實踐情況及適用率低等問題,并分析了包括立法、程序繁瑣、考核制度的影響等多方面原因;第二部分闡述了賦予檢察機關(guān)不起訴裁量權(quán)、以不起訴的形式進(jìn)行審前程序分流的理論基礎(chǔ)、實踐依據(jù)及價值分析,主要從非刑罰化思想、刑罰個別化、寬嚴(yán)相濟原則、犯罪形勢變化、訴訟效率、公共利益、人權(quán)保障等方面進(jìn)行論證;第三部分主要介紹了其他國家審查起訴中程序分流比較成熟的制度,包括美國的審前分流項目、德國的微罪不起訴、起訴保留制度以及日本的起訴猶豫制度,重點分析了它們的適用對象、案件范圍、考量因素、制約機制等;第四部分在前文分析的基礎(chǔ)之上,從擴大審查起訴階段分流的適用和完善監(jiān)督制約機制兩大方面提出完善我國現(xiàn)有制度的構(gòu)想。
[Abstract]:The fourth Plenary session of the 18th CPC Central Committee adopted the "decision of the CPC Central Committee on comprehensively promoting the ruling of the country according to Law" (hereinafter referred to as "the decision"), proposing to promote the reform of the litigation system centered on trial. " The aim of the reform of the litigation system centered on trial is to change the focus of criminal procedure from investigation to trial, to take investigation and prosecution as the supporting work around the trial, and to highlight the central position of the trial. To solve the problem of "fictitious trial" and to promote the materialization and standardization of trial. In view of the limitation of judicial resources, in order to promote the materialization and standardization of the trial and highlight the central position of the trial, it is necessary to establish an effective diversion mechanism of criminal procedure according to the circumstances and characteristics of the case. As Chen Xiaodong put it: "if we blindly invest the same amount of judicial resources in each case regardless of the complexity and diversity of criminal cases, there will only be two consequences: one is to make those simple cases go through complex proceedings needlessly." Cause the waste of litigation resources; second, those complicated cases are difficult to be dealt with fairly and justly because of the relatively insufficient judicial resources invested. "1 therefore, under the premise that judicial resources are relatively scarce, It is a wise choice to allocate the corresponding judicial resources according to the specific situation of the case rather than let each case go through three stages of investigation prosecution and trial mechanically. In other words, in order to realize the reform of trial-centered litigation system, criminal cases must be divided scientifically before trial. From the point of view of the present situation of our country, the criminal procedure in our country pursues the principle of prosecution legalism, and the discretion of the procuratorial organ is narrow, which weakens the function of procedural diversion in the stage of public prosecution. The system of discretionary non-prosecution and conditional non-prosecution is clearly stipulated in the Criminal procedure Law of our country. Although these two systems are the systems that can have the effect of diverting in the stage of examining and prosecuting, they have many defects in judicial practice. Fail to give full play to the function of shunt. The review of the prosecution stage is the last hurdle before the case enters trial, and the number of court cases will be substantially reduced because of the decision of non-prosecution in this stage. Therefore, we should make up for the defects of the existing system, divide the case before trial in the form of non-prosecution, realize the materialization of the trial, and realize the reform goal of "taking trial as the center". This article divides into four parts to examine the prosecution stage procedure diversion mechanism carries on the discussion. The first part introduces the discretionary non-prosecution system and the conditional non-prosecution system, which are provided in the current Criminal procedure Law of our country, which has the function of shunting in the stage of reviewing and prosecuting, with emphasis on the practice of the two systems and the low application rate. The second part expounds the theoretical basis of giving procuratorial organs the discretion of non-prosecution and diverting the pretrial procedure in the form of non-prosecution. Practice basis and value analysis, mainly from the non-punishment thought, penalty individualization, leniency and strict punishment principle, crime situation change, litigation efficiency, public interest, human rights protection and so on. The third part mainly introduces the system of procedure diversion in other countries, including the pretrial diversion project in the United States, the non-prosecution of micro-crime in Germany, the system of prosecution reservation and the hesitant system of prosecution in Japan. It focuses on their applicable object, case scope, consideration factors, restriction mechanism and so on. The fourth part is based on the previous analysis. This paper puts forward the idea of perfecting the existing system of our country from two aspects: enlarging the application of the diversion in the stage of examining and prosecuting and perfecting the supervision and restriction mechanism.
【學(xué)位授予單位】：南京大學(xué)
【學(xué)位級別】：碩士
【學(xué)位授予年份】：2017
【分類號】：D925.2
，

本文編號：1972450