審查逮捕中社會危險性證明實證研究
發(fā)布時間：2019-04-17 18:23
【摘要】：審查逮捕中“社會危險性”條件(1996年《刑事訴訟法》稱為“逮捕必要性”要件)的理解和適用,是理論界和實務界爭議較大的問題。有些學者認為,“社會危險性”包括了妨礙刑事訴訟程序順利進行與繼續(xù)危害社會的兩個方面的危險性的內容。有些學者指出,“社會危險性”的內容應從犯罪行為的性質、保障刑事訴訟程序正常進行的可能性、繼續(xù)犯罪的可能性、犯罪嫌疑人和被告人的自身生理與心理條件等的情況加以審視。較為普遍的觀點則認為,所謂“社會危險性”,包括了罪行危險性和人身危險性兩個方面的內容;其中,人身危險性又包括再次犯罪的可能性與妨礙刑事訴訟的可能性兩個方面的內容。只有具有法律規(guī)定的“社會危險性”情形,以及采取取保候審、監(jiān)視居住不足以防止這種社會危險性的發(fā)生的情況下,才能適用逮捕措施。2012年3月14日,十一屆全國人民代表大會第五次會議審議通過了《關于修改中華人民共和國刑事訴訟法的決定》,對“社會危險性”進行了相對細化的規(guī)定,使得司法實踐的可操作性有了一定的提升;然而,它并沒有對“社會危險性”的證據依據、證明程度及其程序保障等一系列問題作出進一步的明確性、規(guī)范性的規(guī)定,公安機關對于社會危險性證明的相關證據材料的收集與整理的重視程度依然不高,使得檢察機關對于“社會危險性”要件的分析與審查仍舊陷于“無米之炊”的尷尬境地。司法實踐中,辦案人員的自由裁量空間依舊很大,在審查逮捕中關于“社會危險性”的實質性分析與認證情況依舊不令人樂觀。社會危險性的證明,是一個整體、綜合的分析與認證過程,必然要遵循一般的邏輯法則;也總是要從一定的客觀事實與行為要素出發(fā),它既要從微觀層面逐一審查,也要在宏觀角度予以整體把握。本文試圖從實證出發(fā),發(fā)現和把握當前社會危險性證明存在的一些問題及其原因,進而提出相應的改革建議,為社會危險性證明機制的完善略盡綿力。本文共分為三個部分:第一部分,以G省Q州兩級人民檢察院2011年—2014年7月份的審查逮捕實踐的相關情況為數據基礎,分析其在審查逮捕中關于“無社會危險性”的相關數據情況;并重點考察其在修改后的《刑事訴訟法》自2013年1月1日正式實施以來的社會危險性證明的相關情況;從而,發(fā)現與把握審查逮捕過程中社會危險性證明存在的現實困境。第二部分,則圍繞發(fā)現的審查逮捕逮捕過程中社會危險性證明存在的現實困境,并結合自身的司法實踐,闡述了造成社會危險性證明諸多問題的原因。第三部分,在較大程度上相對準確地把握社會危險性證明的癥結的基礎之上,借鑒相關制度的內容和實踐經驗;提出了關于完善社會危險性證明的主體責任、標準設定、規(guī)范以及程序設計等方面的具體舉措。
[Abstract]:It is a controversial issue in theory and practice to examine the understanding and application of the condition of "social danger" in arrest (the criminal procedure law of 1996 is called "the necessity of arrest"). Some scholars believe that the "social danger" includes two dangerous aspects that hinder the smooth conduct of criminal proceedings and continue to endanger the society. Some scholars have pointed out that the content of "social danger" should guarantee the possibility of normal conduct of criminal proceedings and the possibility of continuing to commit crimes from the nature of a criminal act. Criminal suspects and defendants of their own physical and psychological conditions to be examined. The more common view is that the so-called "social danger" includes two aspects: criminal danger and personal danger; Personal danger also includes the possibility of re-crime and the possibility of obstructing criminal proceedings. Arrest measures can be applied only in cases of "social danger" provided for by law, as well as in cases where bail-outs are not sufficient to prevent the occurrence of such a social hazard. 14 March 2012, The Fifth session of the Eleventh National people's Congress deliberated and adopted the decision on amending the Criminal procedure Law of the people's Republic of China, which provides relatively detailed provisions on the "social danger". The maneuverability of judicial practice has been promoted to a certain extent; However, it does not provide further clarity and normative provisions on a range of issues such as the "social hazard" evidence, the extent of proof and its procedural safeguards, The public security organs still pay little attention to the collection and collation of relevant evidence materials of social hazard proof, which makes the procuratorial organ's analysis and examination of the elements of "social danger" still fall into the awkward situation of "making a meal without rice". In judicial practice, there is still a lot of discretion for the caseload, and the substantial analysis and certification of "social danger" in the examination and arrest is still not optimistic. The proof of social danger is a whole, comprehensive analysis and authentication process, must follow the general logic law; We should always start from certain objective facts and behavioral elements, which should be examined one by one from the micro-level, but also from the macro-angle to grasp it as a whole. This paper tries to find out and grasp some problems and reasons of social hazard proof from the point of view of demonstration, and then puts forward corresponding reform suggestions, which will contribute a little to the perfection of the social hazard proof mechanism. This article is divided into three parts: the first part is based on the relevant information of the people's Procuratorate of Q State of G Province from 2011 to July 2014. (B) Analysis of the relevant data on "non-social danger" in the context of the review of arrests; It also focuses on the relevant situation of the proof of social danger in the revised Code of Criminal procedure since its formal implementation on January 1, 2013, so as to find and grasp the realistic predicament of the proof of social danger in the process of examination and arrest. The second part focuses on the practical dilemma of social danger proof in the process of examination and arrest, and expounds the reasons for many problems caused by social danger proof in combination with its own judicial practice. The third part, on the basis of a relatively accurate grasp of the crux of the proof of social danger, draws lessons from the content and practical experience of the relevant system; Some specific measures are put forward to improve the main responsibility, standard setting, norm and program design of the proof of social danger.
【學位授予單位】：西南政法大學
【學位級別】：碩士
【學位授予年份】：2014
【分類號】：D925.2
本文編號：2459681
[Abstract]:It is a controversial issue in theory and practice to examine the understanding and application of the condition of "social danger" in arrest (the criminal procedure law of 1996 is called "the necessity of arrest"). Some scholars believe that the "social danger" includes two dangerous aspects that hinder the smooth conduct of criminal proceedings and continue to endanger the society. Some scholars have pointed out that the content of "social danger" should guarantee the possibility of normal conduct of criminal proceedings and the possibility of continuing to commit crimes from the nature of a criminal act. Criminal suspects and defendants of their own physical and psychological conditions to be examined. The more common view is that the so-called "social danger" includes two aspects: criminal danger and personal danger; Personal danger also includes the possibility of re-crime and the possibility of obstructing criminal proceedings. Arrest measures can be applied only in cases of "social danger" provided for by law, as well as in cases where bail-outs are not sufficient to prevent the occurrence of such a social hazard. 14 March 2012, The Fifth session of the Eleventh National people's Congress deliberated and adopted the decision on amending the Criminal procedure Law of the people's Republic of China, which provides relatively detailed provisions on the "social danger". The maneuverability of judicial practice has been promoted to a certain extent; However, it does not provide further clarity and normative provisions on a range of issues such as the "social hazard" evidence, the extent of proof and its procedural safeguards, The public security organs still pay little attention to the collection and collation of relevant evidence materials of social hazard proof, which makes the procuratorial organ's analysis and examination of the elements of "social danger" still fall into the awkward situation of "making a meal without rice". In judicial practice, there is still a lot of discretion for the caseload, and the substantial analysis and certification of "social danger" in the examination and arrest is still not optimistic. The proof of social danger is a whole, comprehensive analysis and authentication process, must follow the general logic law; We should always start from certain objective facts and behavioral elements, which should be examined one by one from the micro-level, but also from the macro-angle to grasp it as a whole. This paper tries to find out and grasp some problems and reasons of social hazard proof from the point of view of demonstration, and then puts forward corresponding reform suggestions, which will contribute a little to the perfection of the social hazard proof mechanism. This article is divided into three parts: the first part is based on the relevant information of the people's Procuratorate of Q State of G Province from 2011 to July 2014. (B) Analysis of the relevant data on "non-social danger" in the context of the review of arrests; It also focuses on the relevant situation of the proof of social danger in the revised Code of Criminal procedure since its formal implementation on January 1, 2013, so as to find and grasp the realistic predicament of the proof of social danger in the process of examination and arrest. The second part focuses on the practical dilemma of social danger proof in the process of examination and arrest, and expounds the reasons for many problems caused by social danger proof in combination with its own judicial practice. The third part, on the basis of a relatively accurate grasp of the crux of the proof of social danger, draws lessons from the content and practical experience of the relevant system; Some specific measures are put forward to improve the main responsibility, standard setting, norm and program design of the proof of social danger.
【學位授予單位】：西南政法大學
【學位級別】：碩士
【學位授予年份】：2014
【分類號】：D925.2
【參考文獻】
相關期刊論文 前10條
1 忻鵬宇;;淺析刑事訴訟中“社會危險性”的法律含義[J];法制與社會;2014年13期
2 王彪;;刑事訴訟中的“逮捕中心主義”現象評析[J];中國刑事法雜志;2014年02期
3 徐廣山;;淺議審查逮捕階段聽取律師意見制度[J];法制博覽(中旬刊);2014年04期
4 葉青;;審查逮捕程序中律師介入權的保障[J];法學;2014年02期
5 楊秀莉;關振海;;逮捕條件中社會危險性評估模式之構建[J];中國刑事法雜志;2014年01期
6 吳燕;胡向遠;;新《刑訴法》對未成年人案件社會調查制度的構建[J];上海政法學院學報(法治論叢);2014年01期
7 封紅梅;;羈押必要性審查制度實施問題研究——基于《人民檢察院刑事訴訟規(guī)則(試行)》相關規(guī)定的思考[J];行政與法;2013年12期
8 金晶;;逮捕條件中的社會危險性研究[J];法制與經濟(上旬);2013年12期
9 肖中華;饒明黨;林靜;;審查逮捕聽證制度研究[J];法學雜志;2013年12期
10 關振海;;逮捕必要性審查:實踐探索與機制完善[J];貴州警官職業(yè)學院學報;2013年06期
相關重要報紙文章 前6條
1 周彬 ;於乾雄 ;李怡文;;有無必要關鍵看“社會危險性”[N];檢察日報;2014年
2 林嘉中;藺東明;;從犯罪嫌疑人一貫表現判斷其社會危險性[N];檢察日報;2013年
3 詹靜;;“社會危險性”的理解與把握[N];檢察日報;2013年
4 王彩冬 ;王友仿;;“可能實施新的犯罪”證明的三個要點[N];檢察日報;2013年
5 卞建林;褚寧;;刑訴法學研究七大看點引人關注[N];檢察日報;2012年
6 白泉民;高景峰;;如何掌握“逮捕必要性”[N];檢察日報;2004年
，本文編號：2459681
本文鏈接：http://sikaile.net/falvlunwen/susongfa/2459681.html
