C市捕后羈押必要性審查實(shí)務(wù)研究
發(fā)布時(shí)間：2018-08-06 08:34
【摘要】：為強(qiáng)化人民檢察院對(duì)羈押措施的監(jiān)督,防止和糾正超期羈押、不必要的持續(xù)關(guān)押,現(xiàn)行刑事訴訟法第九十三條賦予檢察機(jī)關(guān)捕后羈押必要性審查權(quán)限和職能,彰顯出我國刑事訴訟價(jià)值取向的深刻變化和刑事法治的不斷進(jìn)步。最高人民檢察院新修訂的《人民檢察院刑事訴訟規(guī)則(試行)》對(duì)捕后羈押必要性審查作了較為細(xì)化的規(guī)定,具有較高的可操作性。但是,我國法學(xué)界和實(shí)踐部門仍然對(duì)捕后羈押必要性審查的一些具體問題存在爭(zhēng)議,認(rèn)為捕后羈押必要性審查制度仍然不夠完善。有鑒于此,筆者以C市檢察院捕后羈押必要性審查實(shí)務(wù)運(yùn)作為主要對(duì)象,通過直接觀察、調(diào)查、案例及相關(guān)文獻(xiàn)收集、分析等方法,具體考察捕后羈押必要性審查機(jī)制運(yùn)行情況,探討存在的問題和對(duì)策。本文認(rèn)為,首先,捕后羈押必要性審查與逮捕必要性審查具有緊密關(guān)系,二者的聯(lián)系在于,它們都是廣義上的羈押必要性審查,審查內(nèi)容基本一致,就運(yùn)作程序而言,捕后羈押必要性審查是逮捕必要性審查的延伸,其區(qū)別主要體現(xiàn)為審查的權(quán)利屬性、制度功能及部分審查內(nèi)容不相同,簡(jiǎn)言之,捕后羈押必要性審查具有進(jìn)一步強(qiáng)化嫌疑人、被告人權(quán)利保護(hù)、有效控制羈押權(quán)及保證羈押合理性的性質(zhì)和功能。其次,本文專門討論了C市審查逮捕和捕后羈押必要性審查的基本情況。筆者發(fā)現(xiàn),批捕環(huán)節(jié)基本維持較高批捕率,以構(gòu)罪即捕為原則；雖然不同時(shí)候逮捕率有所起伏,但總體處于高羈押率態(tài)勢(shì),捕后羈押必要性審查對(duì)減少羈押的效果有所顯現(xiàn),但不突出。筆者認(rèn)為,這種不利情況與捕后羈押必要性審查的某些機(jī)制有關(guān)：一是,啟動(dòng)審查時(shí)間和審查期限沒有具體規(guī)定,不能保證審查的科學(xué)性、及時(shí)性和合理性；二是,公訴部門案多人少壓力大,辦案人員不愿承擔(dān)捕后羈押必要性審查,因而開展審查甚少；三是,實(shí)際進(jìn)行的審查以書面審查為主,聽證審查是探索,審查對(duì)象采取過濾篩選方法確定,重點(diǎn)審查內(nèi)容為被羈押人是否仍然具有社會(huì)危險(xiǎn)性,是否會(huì)妨礙訴訟進(jìn)行；四是,捕后羈押必要性審查程序基本上采用層報(bào)方式,責(zé)任落實(shí)到人,權(quán)責(zé)明確；實(shí)踐效果表現(xiàn)為逮捕變更為其他強(qiáng)制措施的比例上升,但變更原因較為集中,主要是“患有嚴(yán)重疾病、刑事和解、系生活不能自理人的唯一撫養(yǎng)人”等較為客觀、直觀,容易判斷的原因。再者,本文分析了捕后羈押必要性審查的配套機(jī)制,發(fā)現(xiàn)律師代為申請(qǐng)羈押必要性審查案件非常少,沒有充分發(fā)揮維護(hù)當(dāng)事人利益的角色職能；內(nèi)部溝通機(jī)制不完善；責(zé)任追究機(jī)制尚未建立,審查程序所規(guī)定的“責(zé)任到人”無法落實(shí)。最后,筆者總結(jié)了C市的一些實(shí)踐經(jīng)驗(yàn)：審查啟動(dòng)的全面性保障了犯罪嫌疑人、被告人獲得救濟(jì)的權(quán)利的行使；主次分明的審查內(nèi)容避免了“一案一查”,很大程度解放了有限的司法資源；合理的配套制度不僅督促檢察機(jī)關(guān)認(rèn)真對(duì)待,一定程度上起到了息訴罷訪的作用。針對(duì)問題,筆者提出如下建議：規(guī)定定期審查和隨機(jī)審查；從制度上對(duì)公訴部門不作為加以規(guī)范和督促；擴(kuò)大案件審查范圍；建立責(zé)任追究機(jī)制,落實(shí)責(zé)任到人；加大羈押替代性強(qiáng)制措施的實(shí)施和監(jiān)督,提高其在保障訴訟順利進(jìn)行中的作用。
[Abstract]:In order to strengthen the supervision of the detention measures by the people's Procuratorate, prevent and correct the overdue detention and unnecessarily continuous detention, the ninety-third article of the current criminal procedure law endows the procuratorial organs with the necessity of examining the necessity of post arrest, and shows the profound changes in the value orientation of the criminal procedure in China and the continuous progress of the criminal law. The newly revised law of the people's Procuratorate (Trial) of the people's Procuratorate (Trial) > has made a more detailed regulation on the review of the necessity of post arrest detention, which has high operability. However, there are still disputes over some specific problems in the review of the necessity of post arrest detention in the legal and practical departments of China. In view of this, the author takes the review practice of the necessity of arrest detention in the C city procuratorate as the main object, through direct observation, investigation, case and related literature collection, analysis and other methods, to examine the operation of the review mechanism of the necessity of post arrest, and discuss the existing problems and countermeasures. The relationship between the sexual review and the necessity of the arrest is closely related. The connection between the two is that they are all the necessary reviews of the detention in a broad sense, and the contents of the review are basically consistent. In terms of the operation procedure, the review of the necessity of post arrest is an extension of the review of the necessity of arrest, and the difference between the rights, the system function and the part of the review. In short, the review of the necessity of post arrest has the nature and function of further strengthening the suspect, the protection of the defendant's rights, the effective control of the right to detain and the reasonableness of the detention. Secondly, the basic situation of the review of the necessity of arrest and arrest in C is discussed in this paper. The author finds that the link of arrest is basic. The principle of high arrest rate is maintained in order to construct a crime or arrest. Although the arrest rate has fluctuated in different times, it is generally in the high detention rate, and the review of the necessity of post arrest has some effect on the reduction of detention, but it is not outstanding. There is no specific provision for the examination time and period of review, which can not guarantee the scientificity, timeliness and rationality of the review; two, the public prosecution case is less stressed, the case handling personnel do not want to undertake the review of the necessity of post arrest, and the review is very small; the three is that the actual review is based on written examination, and the hearing review is the exploration and review. To determine whether the detainees still have social danger and whether it will impede the litigation; four, the review procedure of the necessity of post arrest is basically adopted, the responsibility is implemented and the responsibility is clear, and the practice result is the proportion of the arrest change to other coercive measures. But the reasons for the change are more concentrated, which are mainly "serious diseases, criminal reconciliation, the sole rearing of the person who can not take care of themselves" and other objective, intuitive, and easy to judge. Furthermore, this article analyses the supporting mechanism of the review of the necessity of post arrest, and a very few cases of the examination of the necessity of applying for detention. The function of the role of maintaining the interests of the parties is fully played; the internal communication mechanism is not perfect; the accountability mechanism has not been established, and the "responsibility to the person", as stipulated in the review procedure, can not be implemented. Finally, the author summarizes some practical experiences of the C City: the comprehensive nature of the review starts the rights of the suspects and the defendants to obtain the right to relief. The clear examination content of the main and secondary has avoided the "one case and one check" and liberated the limited judicial resources to a great extent; the reasonable supporting system not only urged the procuratorial organ to seriously treat it, but also played the role of interest complaint to some extent. In view of the problems, the author put forward the following suggestions: regular review and random examination; from the system of system, On the level of public prosecution, the inaction of the public prosecution is regulated and urged, the scope of the case review, the establishment of the accountability mechanism, the implementation of the responsibility to the person, the implementation and supervision of the alternative coercive measures in detention, and the enhancement of their role in the smooth progress of the safeguards litigation.
【學(xué)位授予單位】：西南大學(xué)
【學(xué)位級(jí)別】：碩士
【學(xué)位授予年份】：2015
【分類號(hào)】：D925.2
本文編號(hào)：2167149
[Abstract]:In order to strengthen the supervision of the detention measures by the people's Procuratorate, prevent and correct the overdue detention and unnecessarily continuous detention, the ninety-third article of the current criminal procedure law endows the procuratorial organs with the necessity of examining the necessity of post arrest, and shows the profound changes in the value orientation of the criminal procedure in China and the continuous progress of the criminal law. The newly revised law of the people's Procuratorate (Trial) of the people's Procuratorate (Trial) > has made a more detailed regulation on the review of the necessity of post arrest detention, which has high operability. However, there are still disputes over some specific problems in the review of the necessity of post arrest detention in the legal and practical departments of China. In view of this, the author takes the review practice of the necessity of arrest detention in the C city procuratorate as the main object, through direct observation, investigation, case and related literature collection, analysis and other methods, to examine the operation of the review mechanism of the necessity of post arrest, and discuss the existing problems and countermeasures. The relationship between the sexual review and the necessity of the arrest is closely related. The connection between the two is that they are all the necessary reviews of the detention in a broad sense, and the contents of the review are basically consistent. In terms of the operation procedure, the review of the necessity of post arrest is an extension of the review of the necessity of arrest, and the difference between the rights, the system function and the part of the review. In short, the review of the necessity of post arrest has the nature and function of further strengthening the suspect, the protection of the defendant's rights, the effective control of the right to detain and the reasonableness of the detention. Secondly, the basic situation of the review of the necessity of arrest and arrest in C is discussed in this paper. The author finds that the link of arrest is basic. The principle of high arrest rate is maintained in order to construct a crime or arrest. Although the arrest rate has fluctuated in different times, it is generally in the high detention rate, and the review of the necessity of post arrest has some effect on the reduction of detention, but it is not outstanding. There is no specific provision for the examination time and period of review, which can not guarantee the scientificity, timeliness and rationality of the review; two, the public prosecution case is less stressed, the case handling personnel do not want to undertake the review of the necessity of post arrest, and the review is very small; the three is that the actual review is based on written examination, and the hearing review is the exploration and review. To determine whether the detainees still have social danger and whether it will impede the litigation; four, the review procedure of the necessity of post arrest is basically adopted, the responsibility is implemented and the responsibility is clear, and the practice result is the proportion of the arrest change to other coercive measures. But the reasons for the change are more concentrated, which are mainly "serious diseases, criminal reconciliation, the sole rearing of the person who can not take care of themselves" and other objective, intuitive, and easy to judge. Furthermore, this article analyses the supporting mechanism of the review of the necessity of post arrest, and a very few cases of the examination of the necessity of applying for detention. The function of the role of maintaining the interests of the parties is fully played; the internal communication mechanism is not perfect; the accountability mechanism has not been established, and the "responsibility to the person", as stipulated in the review procedure, can not be implemented. Finally, the author summarizes some practical experiences of the C City: the comprehensive nature of the review starts the rights of the suspects and the defendants to obtain the right to relief. The clear examination content of the main and secondary has avoided the "one case and one check" and liberated the limited judicial resources to a great extent; the reasonable supporting system not only urged the procuratorial organ to seriously treat it, but also played the role of interest complaint to some extent. In view of the problems, the author put forward the following suggestions: regular review and random examination; from the system of system, On the level of public prosecution, the inaction of the public prosecution is regulated and urged, the scope of the case review, the establishment of the accountability mechanism, the implementation of the responsibility to the person, the implementation and supervision of the alternative coercive measures in detention, and the enhancement of their role in the smooth progress of the safeguards litigation.
【學(xué)位授予單位】：西南大學(xué)
【學(xué)位級(jí)別】：碩士
【學(xué)位授予年份】：2015
【分類號(hào)】：D925.2
【參考文獻(xiàn)】
相關(guān)期刊論文 前10條
1 卞建林;張璐;;刑事強(qiáng)制措施的完善與實(shí)施[J];安徽大學(xué)學(xué)報(bào)(哲學(xué)社會(huì)科學(xué)版);2013年01期
2 王樹茂;;“羈押必要性審查”的理解與適用[J];法學(xué)評(píng)論;2013年06期
3 宋英輝;王貞會(huì);;刑事強(qiáng)制措施修改若干問題[J];暨南學(xué)報(bào)(哲學(xué)社會(huì)科學(xué)版);2012年01期
4 陳瑞華;未決羈押制度的理論反思[J];法學(xué)研究;2002年05期
5 萬春;劉辰;;羈押必要性審查制度的思考[J];人民檢察;2012年16期
6 高通;;我國臺(tái)灣地區(qū)羈押制度改革研究[J];臺(tái)灣研究集刊;2011年05期
7 夏陽;徐靜村;潘金貴;劉晴;黃常明;湯茜茜;金園園;陳巧巧;;羈押必要性審查制度的理解與適用[J];人民檢察;2013年23期
8 李昌盛;;為什么不羈押成為例外——我國偵查羈押常態(tài)化探因[J];湘潭大學(xué)學(xué)報(bào)(哲學(xué)社會(huì)科學(xué)版);2009年02期
9 張兆松;;論羈押必要性審查的十大問題[J];中國刑事法雜志;2012年09期
10 陳衛(wèi)東;萬春;宋英輝;苗生明;;羈押必要性審查的理論認(rèn)識(shí)與實(shí)踐應(yīng)用[J];國家檢察官學(xué)院學(xué)報(bào);2012年06期
，本文編號(hào)：2167149
本文鏈接：http://sikaile.net/falvlunwen/susongfa/2167149.html
最近更新
教材專著
