本文選題：新刑事訴訟法 + 刑事庭前會(huì)議　； 參考：《安徽大學(xué)》2014年碩士論文

【摘要】：刑事庭前會(huì)議制度是我國(guó)新刑事訴訟法所確立的新制度之一,是我國(guó)庭前準(zhǔn)備程序的核心制度。該制度的確立引起了理論界和實(shí)務(wù)界的廣泛關(guān)注,很多學(xué)者也發(fā)表了關(guān)于該制度的研究成果。一般來(lái)說(shuō),刑事庭前會(huì)議制度淵源于美國(guó)民事審前會(huì)議。根據(jù)《美國(guó)法律詞典》的定義,刑事庭前會(huì)議是由法官召集的為促進(jìn)審判公正和訴訟效率而在案件開(kāi)庭審理之前解決控辯雙方的爭(zhēng)議以及對(duì)案件的審理程序、證據(jù)準(zhǔn)入和爭(zhēng)點(diǎn)確定進(jìn)行處理的程序。在實(shí)踐中,刑事庭前會(huì)議制度承擔(dān)著程序分流、資訊交流、爭(zhēng)點(diǎn)整理和證據(jù)準(zhǔn)入等功能。刑事庭前會(huì)議制度的確立對(duì)提高我國(guó)刑事訴訟效率、促進(jìn)庭審的實(shí)質(zhì)化具有重要的現(xiàn)實(shí)意義。 由于刑事庭前會(huì)議制度是我國(guó)新刑事訴訟法剛確立的制度,所以在立法和司法層面難免會(huì)有一些不完善的地方。從立法上看,法條規(guī)定過(guò)于原則簡(jiǎn)單不利于司法適用；刑事庭前會(huì)議的內(nèi)容不夠明確,易造成適用混亂；法律沒(méi)有賦予刑事庭前會(huì)議確定的法律效力,限制了刑事庭前會(huì)議制度功能的發(fā)揮；審判人員主持刑事庭前會(huì)議不能排除法官庭前預(yù)斷,不利于審判公正；刑事庭前會(huì)議不能夠排除非法證據(jù)有悖于訴訟原理。從法律實(shí)踐中看,各地出臺(tái)的相關(guān)規(guī)定內(nèi)容不一,呈現(xiàn)多元化特點(diǎn)；被告人及辯護(hù)人訴訟代理人參加庭前會(huì)議的積極性不高；實(shí)踐中庭審時(shí)間的大幅縮短使人產(chǎn)生先定后審之嫌。 相比較而言,美國(guó)審前會(huì)議自1938年確立以來(lái),經(jīng)過(guò)70多年的發(fā)展已經(jīng)相當(dāng)成熟和完備,為緩解美國(guó)司法壓力做出了巨大貢獻(xiàn)。美國(guó)審前會(huì)議立法完備,司法科學(xué)合理對(duì)我國(guó)完善刑事庭前會(huì)議制度具有重要的借鑒意義。具體來(lái)說(shuō),美國(guó)審前會(huì)議給我們的啟示有：第一,賦予審前會(huì)議確定的程序效力是庭審集中迅速進(jìn)行的保障；第二,賦予法官審前裁決的權(quán)力有助于審前會(huì)議的實(shí)質(zhì)化；第三,審前會(huì)議中促進(jìn)案件和解的內(nèi)容可為我國(guó)刑事庭前會(huì)議解決刑事附帶民事中民事調(diào)解提供借鑒；第四,審前會(huì)議應(yīng)確保程序的公正性；第五,審前會(huì)議的目的在于促進(jìn)審判公正和提高審判效率；第六,完善的配套制度是審前會(huì)議功能發(fā)揮的重要保障。 充實(shí)完備庭前準(zhǔn)備程序是世界潮流。刑事庭前會(huì)議制度是我國(guó)刑事庭前準(zhǔn)備程序的核心,但是由于立法規(guī)定的簡(jiǎn)單原則化給司法適用帶來(lái)了諸多問(wèn)題以及程序效力的缺失限制了刑事庭前會(huì)議制度功能的發(fā)揮。因此完善刑事庭前會(huì)議制度應(yīng)從以下方面入手：第一,明確刑事庭前會(huì)議的制度模式。我國(guó)立法并沒(méi)有規(guī)定刑事庭前會(huì)議制度的召開(kāi)模式,但是制度模式是對(duì)制度的一種定位,是制度的外在表現(xiàn)形式。結(jié)合國(guó)際做法以及我國(guó)實(shí)際情況,我國(guó)刑事庭前會(huì)議應(yīng)采取司法審查模式和協(xié)商會(huì)議模式相結(jié)合的方式進(jìn)行。第二,排除法官的庭前預(yù)斷,將審判法官與刑事庭前會(huì)議主持者相分離,由合議庭中的一人或法官助理?yè)?dān)任會(huì)議主持者較為合適。第三,將庭前會(huì)議的處理范圍明確限定為解決程序爭(zhēng)議、審查庭審證據(jù)準(zhǔn)入,進(jìn)行爭(zhēng)點(diǎn)整理和處理當(dāng)事人的申請(qǐng)。第四,賦予刑事庭前會(huì)議確定的法律效力,賦予法官庭前裁決的權(quán)力。第五,賦予當(dāng)事人救濟(jì)的權(quán)力。除此之外,完善的配套制度是刑事庭前會(huì)議制度功能發(fā)揮的重要保障。我國(guó)在完善刑事庭前會(huì)議制度本身的同時(shí)還應(yīng)完善相關(guān)的配套制度,如證據(jù)開(kāi)示、證據(jù)保全、非法證據(jù)排除以及期日征詢(xún)制度等。只有二者的共同完備才能最大程度的發(fā)揮刑事庭前會(huì)議制度提高訴訟效率,保障庭審迅速實(shí)質(zhì)化進(jìn)行的作用。
[Abstract]:The system of pre court meeting is one of the new systems established by the new criminal procedure law in China. It is the core of the preparatory procedure before the court. The establishment of the system has aroused wide attention from the theoretical and practical circles, and many scholars have published the research results on the system. Pretrial conference. In accordance with the definition of the American Law Dictionary, the pre court meeting is a procedure called by a judge to resolve the dispute between the prosecution and the defence before the trial is opened and the proceedings of the case, the admittance of evidence and the determination of the point of dispute for the purpose of promoting the justice and efficiency of the trial. In practice, the system of pre court meetings is in practice. The establishment of the pre court meeting system is of great practical significance to the improvement of the efficiency of our criminal proceedings and the promotion of the substantive trial of the court.
As the system of the pre court meeting is the newly established system of the new criminal procedure law in China, there will be some imperfect places in the legislative and judicial level. From the legislative point of view, the rule of law is too simple to be applicable to the judicial application; the content of the pre court meeting is not clear enough, and it is liable to cause confusion; the law has not been given a penalty. The legal effect determined by the pre court meeting limits the function of the system before the Criminal Tribunal; the pretrial session of the criminal court can not exclude the pretrial pretrial of the judge, which is not conducive to the justice of the trial; the pretrial meeting can not exclude the illegal evidence from the principle of litigation. There is a variety of features; the initiative of the defendants and the defenders' litigation agents to participate in the pre court meetings is not high; the substantial shortening of the trial time in practice causes the suspicion of the first trial and subsequent trial.
In comparison, the pre trial conference of the United States, since its establishment in 1938, has been quite mature and complete after 70 years of development. It has made great contributions to the relief of American judicial pressure. The United States pretrial conference legislation is complete and the judicial science is reasonable for our country to improve the system of the criminal court before the trial. The inspiration of the conference is as follows: first, giving the validity of the procedure determined by the pretrial conference is the guarantee of the trial centralization; second, the power given to the judge's adjudication is helpful to the substance of the pretrial meeting; and third, the content of the promotion of the case reconciliation in the pretrial conference can be used to solve the criminal incidental civil proceedings in the pre court meeting of our country. Civil mediation provides reference; fourth, the pretrial meeting should ensure the fairness of the procedure; fifth, the purpose of the pretrial meeting is to promote the justice of the trial and improve the efficiency of the trial; and sixth, a perfect supporting system is an important guarantee for the function of the pretrial conference.
The pre court preparation procedure is the world trend. The pre court conference system is the core of the preparatory procedure before the Criminal Tribunal in our country. However, because of the simple principle of the legislative provisions, many problems and the lack of procedural effectiveness limit the function of the system of the criminal court before the Criminal Court. Therefore, the pre court meeting before the criminal court is perfected. The system should begin with the following aspects: first, make clear the system pattern of the pre court meeting. China's legislation does not stipulate the convening pattern of the pre court meeting system, but the system model is a position of the system and the external manifestation of the system. Take the mode of judicial review and the mode of consultative meeting to be combined. Second, it is more appropriate to separate the judge from the pre court pretrial, separate the judge from the pretribunal presiding person, and to be the chairperson of the meeting by one or the assistant of the judge. Third, the processing scope of the pre court meeting is clearly defined as a dispute resolution. To review the admittance of trial evidence, to organize and deal with the application of the parties. Fourth, give the legal effect determined by the pre court meeting and give the judge the right to decide before the court. Fifth, the power to give the parties relief. At the same time, the system of the pre court meeting should be perfected, such as the evidence opening, the evidence preservation, the exclusionary rule of the illegal evidence and the system of day and day inquiry. Only the common completion of the two parties can maximize the system of the pre court meeting to improve the efficiency of the lawsuit and ensure the role of the court trial.
【學(xué)位授予單位】：安徽大學(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 吳宏耀;我國(guó)刑事公訴制度的定位與改革——以公訴權(quán)與審判權(quán)的關(guān)系為切入點(diǎn)[J];法商研究;2004年05期

2 王圣揚(yáng);;刑事庭前程序中的權(quán)力(利)配置研究[J];法治研究;2011年02期

3 閔春雷;賈志強(qiáng);;庭前會(huì)議制度適用問(wèn)題研究[J];法律適用;2013年06期

4 謝安平;;論刑事庭前審查程序的價(jià)值——兼論我國(guó)庭前審查程序的完善[J];河北法學(xué);2007年09期

5 蔣石平;甘力文;;英美刑事庭前準(zhǔn)備程序比較研究[J];華南理工大學(xué)學(xué)報(bào)(社會(huì)科學(xué)版);2008年02期

6 韓旭;;構(gòu)建我國(guó)刑事證據(jù)保全制度的思考[J];昆明理工大學(xué)學(xué)報(bào)(社會(huì)科學(xué)版);2009年09期

7 韓紅興;;刑事庭前準(zhǔn)備程序若干問(wèn)題研究[J];人民司法;2009年01期

8 唐磊,吳常青,謝小劍;反思與重構(gòu):論我國(guó)預(yù)斷排除規(guī)則的構(gòu)建[J];法學(xué)論壇;2004年05期

9 閔春雷;;刑事庭前程序研究[J];中外法學(xué);2007年02期

10 宋世杰;張佳華;;中國(guó)刑事預(yù)審制度科學(xué)建構(gòu)概論[J];犯罪研究;2007年06期

相關(guān)博士學(xué)位論文 前1條

1 葉肖華;刑事審判程序分流研究[D];中國(guó)政法大學(xué);2008年

，

本文編號(hào)：2016934