【摘要】：刑事強(qiáng)制措施,作為一種為保障刑事訴訟的順利進(jìn)行、防止新的社會(huì)危險(xiǎn)性的發(fā)生而特設(shè)的重要的刑事訴訟制度,是刑事訴訟制度的重要內(nèi)容之一,在刑事訴訟立法中一直居于突出地位。它是一把雙刃劍,如果運(yùn)用得當(dāng),便可以保障刑事訴訟活動(dòng)的順利進(jìn)行、及時(shí)追究和懲罰犯罪,但是,如果運(yùn)用得不適當(dāng),便會(huì)造成國(guó)家公權(quán)力對(duì)公民人身自由等權(quán)利的侵犯,損害法律尊嚴(yán)。因此,在利用刑事強(qiáng)制措施來(lái)保障刑事訴訟活動(dòng)順利進(jìn)行的同時(shí),必須規(guī)定適當(dāng)?shù)恼{(diào)節(jié)性機(jī)制,也就是刑事強(qiáng)制措施的撤銷(xiāo)、變更和解除制度。其中,捕后刑事強(qiáng)制措施的變更,在立法和司法實(shí)踐中更是有著重要地位,但卻未引起理論界和實(shí)務(wù)界的足夠重視。如果不能正確、及時(shí)、有效地實(shí)施捕后刑事強(qiáng)制措施的變更,將會(huì)使我國(guó)的未決羈押?jiǎn)栴}更加嚴(yán)重。 犯罪嫌疑人被逮捕之后,基于案件進(jìn)展的需要、外界條件變化、犯罪嫌疑人自身情況的變化以及羈押必要性審查的原因,捕后刑事強(qiáng)制措施的變更有其存在的現(xiàn)實(shí)基礎(chǔ)和價(jià)值基礎(chǔ),但是,在實(shí)施的過(guò)程中,應(yīng)當(dāng)充分遵循法定原則、有利偵查原則、相應(yīng)性原則、從輕兼從松原則以及人道主義原則,以保證國(guó)家權(quán)力在訴訟過(guò)程中的正確行使、保障被羈押者的合法權(quán)利。雖然新刑事訴訟法在許多方面做出了適當(dāng)?shù)男抻?但是在司法實(shí)踐中,仍然存在以一定的問(wèn)題,比如檢察機(jī)關(guān)對(duì)逮捕權(quán)的普遍適用,給變更提供了機(jī)會(huì)；羈押依附于羈押型強(qiáng)制措施,喪失自身獨(dú)立性；檢察機(jī)關(guān)對(duì)公安機(jī)關(guān)變更行為的監(jiān)督不完善、監(jiān)督效果不理想等,這些問(wèn)題都需要進(jìn)一步改革和完善。但是,立足于我國(guó)現(xiàn)有的基本國(guó)情,應(yīng)循序漸進(jìn)地進(jìn)行改革,確立未決羈押的獨(dú)立性,賦予檢察機(jī)關(guān)逮捕變更的決定權(quán),細(xì)化逮捕變更的實(shí)施條件,轉(zhuǎn)變檢察機(jī)關(guān)的執(zhí)法理念,甚至可以將部分案件的逮捕變更權(quán)上提一級(jí),以積極主動(dòng)發(fā)揮監(jiān)督職責(zé),同時(shí)充分發(fā)揮羈押替代措施作用,對(duì)逮捕變更的效用也是有積極作用的。希望通過(guò)上述問(wèn)題的探討,能有助于我國(guó)刑事強(qiáng)制措施制度的改革和完善。
[Abstract]:Criminal coercive measures, as an important criminal procedure system, are one of the important contents of criminal procedure system, which is designed to guarantee the smooth progress of criminal procedure and prevent the occurrence of new social danger. In the criminal procedure legislation has been in a prominent position. It is a double-edged sword. If it is used properly, it can guarantee the smooth progress of criminal proceedings and prompt investigation and punishment of crimes. However, if it is not properly used, it will result in the infringement of the rights of the state public power to the personal liberty of citizens. Impair the dignity of the law. Therefore, while making use of the criminal coercive measures to ensure the smooth progress of the criminal prosecution activities, we must stipulate the appropriate regulatory mechanism, that is, the revocation, change and release system of the criminal coercive measures. Among them, the change of criminal coercive measures after arrest plays an important role in legislation and judicial practice, but it has not been paid enough attention to by theorists and practitioners. If the change of criminal coercive measures after arrest is not correct, timely and effective, the problem of pending detention in our country will be more serious. After the arrest of a criminal suspect, due to the need for the progress of the case, the change in external conditions, the change in the suspect's own circumstances and the reasons for the review of the necessity of custody, The change of criminal coercive measures after arrest has its realistic basis and value basis, but in the process of implementation, it should fully abide by the principle of law, the principle of favorable investigation, the principle of correspondence, the principle of leniency and the principle of humanitarianism. In order to ensure the correct exercise of state power in the process of litigation, to protect the legitimate rights of detainees. Although the new criminal procedure law has made appropriate revision in many aspects, there are still some problems in judicial practice, such as the general application of the power of arrest by procuratorial organs, which provides an opportunity to change; Custody depends on the compulsory measures of custody and loses its own independence. The supervision of the procuratorial organs on the change of public security organs is not perfect and the effect of supervision is not ideal. All these problems need to be further reformed and improved. However, based on the existing basic conditions of our country, we should carry out the reform step by step, establish the independence of pending detention, endow the procuratorial organs with the right to decide the arrest changes, refine the conditions for the implementation of the arrest changes, and change the law enforcement concepts of the procuratorial organs. Even some cases of the right to change arrest up to one level, in order to actively play a supervisory role, at the same time give full play to the role of alternative measures of custody, the effectiveness of the change of arrest is also a positive role. It is hoped that the above problems will be helpful to the reform and perfection of the system of criminal coercive measures in our country.
【學(xué)位授予單位】：安徽大學(xué)
【學(xué)位級(jí)別】：碩士
【學(xué)位授予年份】：2014
【分類(lèi)號(hào)】：D925.2

【參考文獻(xiàn)】

相關(guān)期刊論文 前5條

1 毛志斌,成良文;刑事強(qiáng)制措施的變更[J];法學(xué);1992年04期

2 趙慧;;批捕后變更強(qiáng)制措施存在問(wèn)題及對(duì)策[J];法制與經(jīng)濟(jì)(下旬);2011年10期

3 左衛(wèi)民;馬靜華;;偵查羈押制度：?jiǎn)栴}與出路——從查證保障功能角度分析[J];清華法學(xué);2007年02期

4 張西軍;;逮捕措施變更程序的完善思考[J];人民檢察;2009年17期

5 沙瑞;;中日刑事強(qiáng)制措施的比較[J];大眾商務(wù);2009年22期

相關(guān)博士學(xué)位論文 前1條

1 江涌;未決羈押制度研究[D];復(fù)旦大學(xué);2009年

，

本文編號(hào)：2280895