【摘要】：我國刑事二審發(fā)回重審制度無論在司法實(shí)踐中還是學(xué)術(shù)界一直是存在爭(zhēng)議的。該制度當(dāng)然有其存在的價(jià)值，一定程度上實(shí)現(xiàn)實(shí)體上的正義和程序上的正義。但是該制度盡管在2012年進(jìn)行了修改，還有很多的問題。首先是對(duì)于發(fā)回重審的理由部分，“事實(shí)不清，證據(jù)不足”概念的模糊性，尤其在司法實(shí)踐中，產(chǎn)生了應(yīng)用地隨意性；并且該理由與疑罪從無原則相沖突。其次是在發(fā)回重審的程序方面，首先對(duì)于違反法定程序發(fā)回重審的次數(shù)未做限定，很容易產(chǎn)生循環(huán)審判；被告人對(duì)是否發(fā)回重審沒有選擇權(quán)，尤其針對(duì)案件對(duì)違反法定程序，但是實(shí)際上對(duì)被告人并沒有損害的，此時(shí)應(yīng)給予被告人充分的選擇權(quán)，考慮被告人的意愿后決定是否將案件發(fā)回重審，因?yàn)榘l(fā)回重審使得原審判決歸于無效，加長了被告人羈押期限，，使得案件一直處于“懸案”狀態(tài)，不利于維護(hù)被告人的合法權(quán)益。最后，對(duì)于案件的事實(shí)不清，證據(jù)不足，二審法院經(jīng)查后的審理大的方式有兩種，一是可以改判，二是可以發(fā)回原審法院重審，這就使得二審法院不能充分發(fā)揮其功能，且也會(huì)成為法官規(guī)避責(zé)任的方式，扭曲了發(fā)回重審制度的價(jià)值。 本論文就上述問題作了一下完善，首先是對(duì)發(fā)回重審的理由部分進(jìn)行重新地構(gòu)建，對(duì)于“事實(shí)不清，證據(jù)不足”案件，應(yīng)當(dāng)按照疑罪從無原則進(jìn)行審理，應(yīng)當(dāng)貫徹疑罪從無原則的在司法實(shí)踐中的應(yīng)用；同時(shí)二審法院應(yīng)當(dāng)在查清案件的基礎(chǔ)上直接改判，不得發(fā)回原審法院審理，簡潔明了。其次對(duì)發(fā)回重審的程序進(jìn)行完善，對(duì)“可能發(fā)回重審”的標(biāo)準(zhǔn)重新界定，使得其明確具體化，削弱法官的自由裁量權(quán)；對(duì)違反法定程序的發(fā)回重審的次數(shù)做出明確的規(guī)定，以排除出現(xiàn)循環(huán)審判的現(xiàn)象；賦予被告人的程序選擇權(quán)，同時(shí)加強(qiáng)檢察院的對(duì)發(fā)回重審制度的司法監(jiān)督。
[Abstract]:The system of retrial of criminal second instance in our country has always been controversial in judicial practice and academic circles. This system certainly has its existence value, realizes the entity justice and the procedure justice to a certain extent. But although the system was revised in 2012, there are still many problems. Firstly, the fuzziness of the concept of "the fact is unclear, the evidence is insufficient", especially in the judicial practice, has produced the application randomness, and this reason conflicts with the suspicion crime from the principle. Secondly, in the procedure of retrial, first of all, there is no limit on the number of retrials in violation of the legal procedures, so it is easy to produce a circular trial; the accused has no right to choose whether to return the retrial, especially to the violation of the legal procedures in the case. However, in practice, if the defendant is not harmed, the defendant should be given a full option to decide whether to return the case to a retrial after considering the will of the defendant, because the return of the trial will render the original judgment null and void. The longer the period of custody of the defendant, the case has been in a "pending case" state, is not conducive to safeguarding the legitimate rights and interests of the defendant. Finally, with regard to the facts of the case and the lack of evidence, there are two major ways for the court of second instance to hear the case after investigation. One is that it can be revised, the other is that it can be sent back to the original trial court for a retrial. This makes the court of second instance unable to give full play to its function. It will also become a way for judges to evade their responsibilities, distorting the value of retrial system. This paper makes a little improvement on the above questions, first of all, it reconstructs the reason part of the retrial, for the case of "the facts are not clear, the evidence is insufficient", we should proceed to the trial according to the principle of the suspect crime. At the same time, the court of second instance should revise the sentence directly on the basis of investigating the case, and not return to the original court for trial. Secondly, to perfect the procedure of retrial, to redefine the standard of "possible retrial", to make it clear and concrete, to weaken the judge's discretion, and to make a clear stipulation on the times of retrial in violation of the legal procedure. In order to exclude the phenomenon of cyclic trial, to give the defendant the right to choose the procedure, and to strengthen the judicial supervision of the system of retrial by the procuratorate.
【學(xué)位授予單位】：遼寧大學(xué)
【學(xué)位級(jí)別】：碩士
【學(xué)位授予年份】：2014
【分類號(hào)】：D925.2

【參考文獻(xiàn)】

相關(guān)期刊論文 前10條

1 劉少軍;;論刑事訴訟合意的理論基礎(chǔ)[J];安徽大學(xué)學(xué)報(bào)(哲學(xué)社會(huì)科學(xué)版);2008年05期

2 方晨辰;;刑事二審發(fā)回重審制度之實(shí)然分析與規(guī)范設(shè)計(jì)[J];福建法學(xué);2011年03期

3 徐秉暉;;我國刑事二審發(fā)回重審制度實(shí)證與理論分析[J];法律適用;2006年06期

4 駱小鳳;;論我國刑事二審發(fā)回重審制度的改革進(jìn)路[J];法制與社會(huì);2009年36期

5 姜保忠;;刑事發(fā)回重審制度的問題與完善[J];法治研究;2010年11期

6 沈霞;;對(duì)我國刑事二審發(fā)回重審制度執(zhí)行困境與架構(gòu)重塑之思考——以某市中級(jí)人民法院刑事二審案件為例[J];法律適用;2013年10期

7 唐旭東;;刑事訴訟中重復(fù)追訴問題研究[J];河北法學(xué);2008年09期

8 方晨辰;;我國刑事二審發(fā)回重審制度的實(shí)然分析與規(guī)范設(shè)計(jì)[J];河南警察學(xué)院學(xué)報(bào);2011年06期

9 陳衛(wèi)東,李?yuàn)^飛;刑事二審“發(fā)回重審”制度之重構(gòu)[J];法學(xué)研究;2004年01期

10 汪海燕;;論刑事程序倒流[J];法學(xué)研究;2008年05期

本文編號(hào)：2174409