【摘要】：刑事審級制度的重要功能之一就是防止審判權(quán)濫用。如果刑事審級制度在運行中被虛置,則無法防止權(quán)力濫用,將會損害被告人和被害人的合法權(quán)益,阻礙司法公正的實現(xiàn)。以兩審終審為主體、死刑復(fù)核程序和審判監(jiān)督程序為補充的四級兩審終審制在我國出現(xiàn)了形式化問題。審判實踐中,上下級法院關(guān)系出現(xiàn)了嚴重的行政化問題。下級法院經(jīng)常將正在審理的案件報送上級法院請示處理意見,上級法院為此也主動對其匯報的案件予以指導(dǎo)。上級法院的法官去看守所提審被告人,一般由原審法院的主審人陪同,主審人會將自己對案件的個人觀點,講述給二審法官,上下級間進行詳細溝通,甚至一審的法官會直接表示被告人犯罪情節(jié)特別惡劣,影響特別重大,示意二審法官應(yīng)當(dāng)重判或者維持。法院內(nèi)部審判方式行政化,承辦法官閱卷、提審、開庭、接見被害人及被告人的律師,他的裁判基礎(chǔ)很好,可他對案件無最后決定權(quán)。院長和庭長對案件的掌控造成了“審者不判,判者不審”的結(jié)果。審判委員會裁判案件導(dǎo)致了審理權(quán)與裁判權(quán)的分裂。我國各級黨委都設(shè)有政法委員會,遇有重大或疑難復(fù)雜的刑事案件都要向政法委員會匯報,由其協(xié)調(diào)組織多個部門進行研究,并提出處理意見。這種做法的本意是匯集多方力量妥善解決問題,卻在實際上架空了審判獨立原則,政法委臨時帶領(lǐng)的這個團隊變成了幕后的裁判者。粗糙的一審程序使得一審案件質(zhì)量無法得到保證。我國刑事第一審案件開庭審理走過場,在控辯不平衡、控審不分的大環(huán)境下,公訴人往往特別強勢,律師的辯護則顯得單薄,辯護人如果是法院為被告人指定的,其辯護基本上都是敷衍了事,并不認真履行職責(zé),直接導(dǎo)致被告人的辯護權(quán)得不到保障。基層法院普遍存在刑事審判庭向其他審判庭借人組成合議庭的問題,導(dǎo)致合議庭虛置。上級法院指派本院法官赴下級法院就任院長、副院長、庭長,造成上下級審判人員混同問題。二審程序雖然實行全面審查原則,但我國二審法院普遍實行書面審理方式,并且上下級法院關(guān)系出現(xiàn)行政化傾向的情況下,二審程序沒有發(fā)揮法律賦予的糾正一審錯誤裁判,為當(dāng)事人提供權(quán)利救濟的功能。死刑復(fù)核程序趨向行政復(fù)議。死刑案件如果一審是由最高人民法院受理的,那么該案一審終審,被告人的上訴權(quán)被剝奪,最高法院仍然是先自己作出判決然后再自己進行復(fù)核。再審程序極大擴張,導(dǎo)致案件終審不終。我國刑事審級制度形式化問題凸顯,嚴重影響了我國法治現(xiàn)代化的進程。而要想改變這一現(xiàn)狀,實現(xiàn)司法公正、司法效率的價值目標,就需要糾正錯誤的理念,進行深度改革。筆者以所在法院審級職能的實際運行狀況為出發(fā)點,對全國有影響的典型案例進行分析,剖析了我國刑事審級制度存在的形式化問題,結(jié)合刑事審級制度的基本原理,指出應(yīng)對刑事審級制度形式化問題,在微觀方面要推進庭審實質(zhì)化。在宏觀方面,當(dāng)前全面實施的司法體制改革中各項深入、具體的舉措可以從多方面解決我國刑事審級制度形式化問題。通過考察國外先進法治國家刑事審級制度的相關(guān)立法規(guī)定、制度運行模式,得出各國審級制度雖相異但多數(shù)國家均將第三審程序定位為法律審的結(jié)論,筆者提出了在吸收和借鑒國外先進經(jīng)驗的基礎(chǔ)上,建立有限的三審終審制度的構(gòu)想,在現(xiàn)行的等級結(jié)構(gòu)不變情況下重新劃分各級法院的職能。具體說就是建立四級三審終審制度,在法律上對于一定數(shù)量的案件給其兩次上訴的機會,案件的第三審定位為法律審,不進行事實審。同時將死刑復(fù)核程序的性質(zhì)重新定位,使其回歸訴訟程序本身,納入到三審終審的審級制度中。對審判監(jiān)督程序予以完善,再審的提起必須嚴格化。
[Abstract]:One of the important functions of the criminal justice system is to prevent the abuse of the jurisdiction. If the system of criminal examination is set up in operation, it is not possible to prevent the abuse of power, which will damage the lawful rights and interests of the defendant and the victim, and hinder the realization of the judicial justice. In this paper, the formal problems of the four-level two-court-of-the-the-case system, which are complementary to the two-stage and final-of-the-case, are the main subject of the death penalty review and the procedure of trial supervision. In the trial practice, the relationship between the upper and lower courts has serious administrative problems. The lower courts often submit the cases to be heard to the superior court for handling the handling opinions, and the higher courts will also take the initiative to direct the cases to which they are reported. The judge of the superior court shall be accompanied by the presiding officer of the original court, and the presiding judge will give a personal view of the case to the judge of the second instance and the upper and lower level, and even the judge of the first instance will directly indicate that the crime of the defendant is particularly bad, The impact is particularly significant, and the second instance of the second instance should be re-judged or maintained. The administration of the court's internal trial mode, the undertaking of the judge's reading, the trial, the hearing, the interview of the victim and the lawyer of the accused, the basis of his decision is very good, but he has no final decision on the case. The President and the President have led to the 鈥淭he reviewer shall not make a judgment, and the judge shall not review it.鈥，

本文編號：2329749