【摘要】：疑罪從無原則由來已久，在刑法學界一直備受學者關(guān)注，觀點分歧較大。目前，疑罪從無原則在我國訴訟法律中已有體現(xiàn)，但還有不完善的地方。本文從疑罪的概念開始介紹，因為把握疑罪從無原則首先必須弄清楚什么是疑罪，關(guān)于疑罪的概念爭議一直很大，本文的觀點是疑罪只包括定罪問題，不包括法律適用問題，把二者嚴格區(qū)別開來，在犯罪嫌疑人或被告的行為是否構(gòu)成犯罪認定上存在疑難才能稱之為疑罪。在各訴訟階段中，疑罪從無原則在審查起訴和審判階段已有體現(xiàn)，但還有不夠完善的地方，在偵查階段，我國對出現(xiàn)疑罪的情況并沒有規(guī)定，所以應當完善偵查階段出現(xiàn)疑罪情況的立法。根據(jù)各國的普遍做法以及我國的實踐經(jīng)驗總結(jié)，認為在偵查階段出現(xiàn)疑罪時應當做出撤銷案件的決定。在審判程序中，一審程序中對事實不清、證據(jù)不足的案件，明確規(guī)定應當做出事實不清、證據(jù)不足的無罪判決，但在二審及其他程序中，對疑罪的情況并沒有直接規(guī)定按疑罪從無處理，而是可以查清后改判或者撤銷原判發(fā)回重審。法律作出這樣的規(guī)定是出于保障兩審終審制度，是為了保證對不清楚的事實的上訴權(quán)，但是當今社會是法治社會，發(fā)回重審制度意味著整個訴訟程序再走一遍，不僅對于報告的合法權(quán)益保護是極為不利的，，而且也不利于提高訴訟效率和節(jié)約司法資源。所以建議廢除發(fā)回重審制度。在對疑罪從無原則有一定認識以及在我國各訴訟階段的體現(xiàn)有一定認識后，就要開始分析疑罪從無原則在我國全面實施的困境，從觀念上、立法上、體制上分析存在的一些問題，爭對不同的問題提出不同的完善對策。我國現(xiàn)有的社會觀念對于疑罪都是從有或從輕的處理方法，在司法體制上，公檢法職能混同，司法不獨立，立法上缺失或不夠完善，都給疑罪從無原則的實施帶來障礙。本文從這三個方面尋找完善對策，轉(zhuǎn)變司法人員及廣大群眾的觀念，完善訴訟各階段的立法以及確立無罪推定原則，改善司法體制環(huán)境，為疑罪從無原則的實施創(chuàng)造各方面的環(huán)境。另外，在司法實踐中，要嚴格區(qū)分疑罪從無與疑刑從輕的界限，二者一個爭對定罪問題，一個爭對法律適用問題，在性質(zhì)上明顯不同，在處理方法上也必須區(qū)別對待。
[Abstract]:Suspicion of crime has a long history of no principle, in the field of criminal law has been concerned by scholars, opinions are quite different. At present, the suspect crime has been embodied in the litigation law of our country, but there are still some imperfections. This article begins with the concept of suspect, because it is necessary to find out what is suspect first of all. The concept of suspect has always been controversial. The point of view of this paper is that suspicion only includes conviction, not the application of law. To distinguish the two strictly, the suspect or defendant's behavior can be called suspect only if there is difficulty in determining whether the behavior of the suspect or defendant constitutes a crime. In all stages of the proceedings, the suspected crime has been reflected in the stage of examination, prosecution and trial, but there is still not enough perfect place. In the investigation stage, there is no provision for the appearance of the suspected crime in our country. Therefore, we should improve the investigation stage of suspected crime legislation. According to the general practice of various countries and the experience of our country, the author thinks that the decision of withdrawing the case should be made when the suspected crime appears in the investigation stage. In trial proceedings, cases in which facts are unclear and insufficient evidence are not clear in the proceedings of first instance, it is clearly stipulated that an acquittal judgement with unclear facts and insufficient evidence shall be made, but in the second instance and other proceedings, The situation of suspected crime is not directly stipulated that the suspect is never dealt with, but can be checked and rescheduled or rescinded for retrial. The purpose of the law is to guarantee the right of appeal against unclear facts. However, today's society is a society governed by the rule of law. Sending back the system of retrial means that the entire proceedings will be revisited. It is not only unfavorable to the protection of legal rights and interests, but also unfavorable to improving the efficiency of litigation and saving judicial resources. Therefore, it is proposed to abolish the system of retrial. After we have a certain understanding of suspect crime from the principle of no principle and the embodiment of each stage of litigation in our country, we should begin to analyze the dilemma of the full implementation of suspect crime in our country from the point of view of principle and legislation. System analysis of some existing problems, competing for different problems to put forward different improvement measures. The existing social concept of our country is to deal with the suspected crime from the point of view of having or abusing it. In the judicial system, the functions of the Public Security Bureau, the Procuratorate and the Court are mixed, the judicature is not independent, the legislation is lacking or not perfect, all of them bring obstacles to the implementation of the suspected crime without principle. This article looks for the perfect countermeasure from these three aspects, changes the judicial personnel and the general public's idea, consummates the lawsuit each stage legislation and establishes the presumption of innocence principle, improves the judicial system environment, In order to suspect crime from the implementation of the principle of the creation of all aspects of the environment. In addition, in judicial practice, it is necessary to strictly distinguish the boundary between the non-suspect crime and the suspect punishment from the light of the punishment. One dispute is about the conviction and the other is the application of the law, which is obviously different in nature and must be treated differently in the treatment method.
【學位授予單位】：遼寧大學
【學位級別】：碩士
【學位授予年份】：2014
【分類號】：D925.2

【參考文獻】

相關(guān)期刊論文 前9條

1 王亞琴;存疑不起訴刑事案件與國家賠償[J];法律適用;2005年01期

2 葉青;;刑訴法修改筆談（二）淺析疑罪從無原則[J];法學;1996年07期

3 梁玉霞;無罪推定原則的價值選擇與理念調(diào)適[J];河北法學;2005年12期

4 李俊明,宋艷輝;論刑事訴訟中的疑罪從無原則[J];河北廣播電視大學學報;2004年04期

5 金鐘;;論疑罪[J];江蘇社會科學;2013年03期

6 陳衛(wèi)東;;“佘祥林案”的程序法分析[J];中外法學;2005年05期

7 宋英輝;刑事案件事實認定中的幾個問題[J];政法論壇;1991年01期

8 陳瑞華;刑事訴訟中的重復追訴問題[J];政法論壇;2002年05期

9 何家弘;司法公正論[J];中國法學;1999年02期

本文編號：2162949