本文選題：控辯平衡 + 庭審實質(zhì)化��； 參考：《安徽大學(xué)》2016年碩士論文

【摘要】：庭審實質(zhì)化是我國今后刑事司法改革的方向和目標(biāo),控辯平衡則是庭審實質(zhì)化的保障。沒有控辯兩造的平等對抗與互相制衡,審判機(jī)關(guān)無法及時認(rèn)定證據(jù),無法查清案件事實,不能將庭審變成為刑事司法程序的中心。文章從控辯平衡視角下研究庭審實質(zhì)化問題,意在強(qiáng)調(diào)二者互相促進(jìn)的密切關(guān)系。文章首先是控辯平衡視角下的庭審實質(zhì)化的理論基礎(chǔ),在分析了相關(guān)概念基本的含義后認(rèn)為,控辯平衡下的庭審實質(zhì)化需要國家與個人地位的平等、刑事訴訟合意制度的指導(dǎo)。刑事訴訟合意制度是將契約、意思表示等概念引入刑事訴訟領(lǐng)域。訴訟合意的前提是控辯雙方的平等,雙方在平等的基礎(chǔ)上通過談判達(dá)成合意。緊接著文章重點探討了控辯平衡視角下的庭審實質(zhì)化中存在的主要問題及其成因,認(rèn)為控辯平衡視角下的庭審實質(zhì)化中存在的主要問題是,庭審方式的卷宗中心主義,從控辯平衡的角度,卷宗材料由偵查機(jī)關(guān)和公訴機(jī)關(guān)制作,被告方及其辯護(hù)人無法參與制定程序中,甚至連了解事實閱卷了解卷宗材料內(nèi)容的機(jī)會都沒有。庭前會議的變異和庭下、庭外活動的常態(tài)化,庭前會議卻發(fā)生了變形,出現(xiàn)了很多問題,影響了庭審的實質(zhì)化,更加無法保證在庭前會議中保證控辯的平衡。庭前會議的最大問題是實體化趨勢,架空了庭審程序,許多本不該由庭前會議決定的問題也涌入庭前會議,由庭前會議來處理。庭審內(nèi)容的選擇,庭外裁判的盛行。造成這些問題的主要原因是偵查中心主義影響到庭審和司法活動的行政化。最后文章研究了控辯平衡視角下庭審實質(zhì)化的實現(xiàn)路徑,具體來說,平等武裝的基本要求是立法中對控方與辯方權(quán)利設(shè)定必須對等平衡,這就要求刑事訴訟法賦予檢察院和被告人對等的訴訟權(quán)利和義務(wù),以使控辯雙方能夠真正平等、有效地參與訴訟,促進(jìn)糾紛的解決。庭審方式上直接言詞原則的切實確立,要求法官直接審查所有證據(jù),所有證據(jù)經(jīng)法官直接調(diào)查,才能作為判決的依據(jù)。變更卷宗的法律定位,明確規(guī)定庭審之前卷宗材料中的各類材料,包括證人證言、被害人陳述、被告供述等都還只是證據(jù)原料,并不必然具有證據(jù)能力,必須要經(jīng)過庭審質(zhì)證和審查后才能決定是否具有證明效力和證據(jù)能力。完善鑒定人員、證人出庭制度。庭前會議的完善從發(fā)起主體來看,為了保證控辯平衡,應(yīng)該賦予控辯雙方都有庭前會議發(fā)起權(quán)利。從主持人角度,應(yīng)考慮將庭前會議主持人與合議庭成員區(qū)分開。強(qiáng)化辯護(hù)人在庭審會議中作用。完善庭前會議效力規(guī)定。確保當(dāng)庭裁判,強(qiáng)化合議庭獨(dú)立性,減少庭長、院長和審委會對合議庭獨(dú)立審理、判斷的不當(dāng)干越。提高當(dāng)庭裁判效果是司法改革的目標(biāo)之一。充實庭審調(diào)查,促進(jìn)舉證,完善庭審調(diào)查程序,強(qiáng)化辯方的質(zhì)證權(quán)。
[Abstract]:The materialization of trial is the direction and goal of our country's criminal judicial reform in the future, and the balance of prosecution and defense is the guarantee of the materialization of trial. Without the equal confrontation and checks and balances between the two sides, the judicial organs could not identify the evidence in time, find out the facts of the case, and turn the trial into the center of the criminal justice process. From the angle of the balance of prosecution and defense, this paper studies the materialization of the trial and emphasizes the close relationship between the two. Firstly, the article is the theoretical basis of the trial materialization from the angle of the balance of prosecution and defense. After analyzing the basic meaning of the relevant concepts, the author thinks that the essence of the trial under the balance of prosecution and defense needs the equality of the state and the individual status, and the guidance of the consensus system of the criminal procedure. The system of agreement in criminal procedure is to introduce the concepts of contract and expression of will into the field of criminal procedure. The premise of litigation agreement is the equality of prosecution and defense, and the two sides reach agreement through negotiation on the basis of equality. Then the article discusses the main problems and their causes of the trial in the perspective of the balance of prosecution and defense, and thinks that the main problem in the substantive trial is the file centralism of the trial mode. From the point of view of the balance of prosecution and prosecution, the file materials are produced by the investigating and public prosecution organs, and the defense and their defenders cannot participate in the formulation of the procedure, or even the opportunity to read the facts and understand the contents of the file materials. The variation of the pre-court meeting and the normalization of the out-of-court activities, however, the pre-court meeting has been deformed and many problems have appeared, which have affected the substance of the trial, and can not guarantee the balance of the prosecution and defense in the pre-court meeting. The biggest problem of the pre-court meeting is the trend of materialization, which sets up the trial procedure, and many problems which should not be decided by the pre-court meeting also rush into the pre-court meeting to be dealt with by the pre-court meeting. The choice of the content of the trial, the prevalence of out-of-court adjudication. The main reason for these problems is that investigative centralism affects the administration of trial and judicial activities. Finally, the article studies the realization path of the trial materialization from the angle of the balance of prosecution and defense. Specifically, the basic requirement of equal armed forces is that the right of the prosecution and the defense must be equitably balanced in the legislation. This requires that the criminal procedure law endow the procuratorate and the defendant with the equal rights and duties of litigation, so that the prosecution and defense can participate in the lawsuit equally and effectively, and promote the settlement of disputes. The establishment of the principle of direct speech in the trial mode requires the judge to examine all the evidence directly and all the evidence can be taken as the basis of the judgment only after the judge directly investigates the evidence. Changing the legal position of the file and clearly stipulating that all kinds of materials in the file before the trial, including the testimony of the witness, the statement of the victim, the statement of the defendant, etc., are only the raw materials of evidence and do not necessarily have the evidentiary capacity. Only after trial cross-examination and examination can we decide whether we have the validity and the ability of evidence. Perfect appraisal personnel, witness appear in court system. In order to ensure the balance of prosecution and defense, both the prosecution and the defense should be given the right to initiate the pre-court meeting. From the point of view of the moderator, consideration should be given to the distinction between the presiding officer and the collegiate panel member. Strengthen the role of the defender in the trial meeting. To perfect the provisions on the validity of the pre-court meeting. To ensure the decision in court, strengthen the independence of the collegiate panel, and reduce the improper judgment of the chairman, the president and the jury. One of the aims of judicial reform is to improve the effect of adjudication in court. Enrich the trial investigation, promote the evidence, perfect the trial investigation procedure and strengthen the defense's right of cross-examination.
【學(xué)位授予單位】：安徽大學(xué)
【學(xué)位級別】：碩士
【學(xué)位授予年份】：2016
【分類號】：D925.2

【相似文獻(xiàn)】

相關(guān)期刊論文 前7條

1 郭松;;庭前公訴案卷移送制度改革新論——以庭審實質(zhì)化為中心的討論[J];福建公安高等�？茖W(xué)校學(xué)報;2007年04期

2 唐稷堯;罪刑法定視野下犯罪成立要件的實質(zhì)化[J];現(xiàn)代法學(xué);2004年03期

3 張偉;;我國犯罪參與體系下正犯概念不宜實質(zhì)化——基于中、日、德刑法的比較研究[J];中國刑事法雜志;2013年10期

4 謝紹華;;作為義務(wù)來源的實質(zhì)化[J];政法論壇;2008年02期

5 朱騰;;原則化與規(guī)則化——《春秋公羊傳》與《春秋谷梁傳》所見周禮之實質(zhì)化的兩種路徑[J];法制與社會發(fā)展;2013年06期

6 龍志貴;王牌;;論監(jiān)督權(quán)的實質(zhì)化及實現(xiàn)路徑[J];湖南行政學(xué)院學(xué)報;2010年01期

7 ;[J];;年期

相關(guān)會議論文 前1條

1 崔文勝;;糾正意見的實質(zhì)化——兼論《人民檢察院組織法》的修改與完善[A];第七屆國家高級檢察官論壇會議文章[C];2011年

相關(guān)重要報紙文章 前2條

1 北京市海淀區(qū)人民檢察院 劉惠;堅持角色定位 推進(jìn)庭審實質(zhì)化[N];檢察日報;2014年

2 張朋朋 張霽;刑事判決書如何實現(xiàn)說理實質(zhì)化[N];江蘇法制報;2013年

相關(guān)碩士學(xué)位論文 前2條

1 張磊;論控辯平衡視角下的庭審實質(zhì)化[D];安徽大學(xué);2016年

2 班銀安;刑事案卷移送制度與庭審實質(zhì)化研究[D];安徽大學(xué);2014年

，

本文編號：2106554