【摘要】：我國(guó)的刑事一審審限制度是具有區(qū)域特色的法律制度,它是基于我國(guó)案卷中心主義的訴訟模式以及司法實(shí)踐中高超期羈押率而產(chǎn)生的,它的主要功能在于提高辦案效率以及保障被告人的權(quán)利,援引最高人民法院副院長(zhǎng)沈德詠的話說(shuō)：“案件的審理期限,是法律對(duì)人民法院審理案件所作出的最基本的時(shí)間要求,其目的是在保證案件審判質(zhì)量的前提下,提高司法效率,使當(dāng)事人在法定期限內(nèi)獲得公正審判。”由此我們可以看出審限制度是為公正與效率的兼顧而制定的。筆者在考察西方法治發(fā)達(dá)國(guó)家的審判制度時(shí),沒(méi)有發(fā)現(xiàn)關(guān)于審限制度的規(guī)定,但是它們的審判立法同樣致力于提高司法效率與保障人權(quán),同樣致力于公正與效率的兼顧；諸如通過(guò)辯訴交易程序、刑事處罰令、集中審理原則來(lái)提高司法效率；比如可以通過(guò)對(duì)未決羈押實(shí)行司法審查制度,廣泛的使用非羈押性強(qiáng)制措施,保障被告人的權(quán)利。 同樣的立法目的卻產(chǎn)生截然不同的法律制度,背后到底隱藏什么樣的原因?不同的法律制度現(xiàn)今的運(yùn)行狀況到底如何?我國(guó)刑事一審審限制度在實(shí)際運(yùn)行中存在哪些不足?現(xiàn)行刑事一審審限制度對(duì)于我國(guó)法律界工作提出哪些要求?我們將如何完善這一重要的具有區(qū)域特色的法律制度?這一系列的問(wèn)題引起了筆者的興趣。 本文試圖從我國(guó)刑事審限制度產(chǎn)生與發(fā)展的原因入手,分析其生存的法制土壤,進(jìn)而在此基礎(chǔ)上借鑒國(guó)外法治發(fā)達(dá)國(guó)家關(guān)于審限的相關(guān)制度經(jīng)驗(yàn),完善我國(guó)刑事一審審限制度,使其進(jìn)入一個(gè)良性運(yùn)作的軌道。
[Abstract]:The system of first instance trial in our country is a legal system with regional characteristics. It is based on the litigation mode of file centralism and the high rate of extended detention in judicial practice. Its main function is to improve the efficiency of handling cases and to protect the rights of the accused. Shen Deyong, vice president of the Supreme people's Court, was quoted as saying: "the time limit for hearing a case is the most basic time requirement made by law for the people's court to hear a case." The aim is to improve the efficiency of the administration of justice on the premise of ensuring the quality of the trial, so that the parties concerned can obtain a fair trial within the statutory time limit. " Therefore, we can see that the system of trial limit is made for the consideration of justice and efficiency. When the author inspects the trial system of the developed countries with the rule of law in the west, it does not find the stipulation about the trial limit system, but their trial legislation is also devoted to improving the judicial efficiency and protecting human rights, and also devoting to the balance of justice and efficiency; Such as through plea bargaining procedure, criminal punishment order, centralized trial principle to improve judicial efficiency; for example, through the pending custody of judicial review system, the widespread use of non-custodial coercive measures to protect the rights of the accused. The same legislative purpose produces a completely different legal system. What are the reasons behind it? What is the current state of operation of different legal systems? What are the deficiencies in the actual operation of the system of first instance trial in our country? What requirements does the current system of first instance trial put forward for the work of the legal profession in our country? How will we improve this important regional legal system? This series of questions aroused the author's interest. This paper attempts to start with the causes of the emergence and development of the system of criminal adjudication in our country, analyzes the legal soil of its existence, and then, on this basis, draws lessons from the relevant system experiences of developed countries with the rule of law in foreign countries, and consummates the system of the first instance of criminal trial in our country. Put it on a sound track.
【學(xué)位授予單位】：湖南師范大學(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9條

1 萬(wàn)毅,劉沛，

本文編號(hào)：2220115