【摘要】：在人類歷史上，自訴是最早出現(xiàn)的人們解決糾紛的方式。到了現(xiàn)代社會(huì)，雖然自訴制度的統(tǒng)治地位已逐漸被公訴所取代，但在有些國(guó)家它尚未完全退出刑事訴訟領(lǐng)域。我國(guó)在刑訴法修改時(shí)極大的擴(kuò)張了自訴案件的范圍，然而在司法實(shí)踐中大量的輕微刑事案件是通過公訴程序解決的，而不是通過自訴程序解決。不科學(xué)的制度設(shè)計(jì)是導(dǎo)致立法初衷和司法實(shí)踐相違背的原因之一。在我國(guó)短時(shí)間內(nèi)還要繼續(xù)保留自訴制度的基礎(chǔ)上，如何通過科學(xué)的制度設(shè)計(jì)達(dá)到最大限度的保障當(dāng)事人的權(quán)益和節(jié)約寶貴的司法資源的目的。我國(guó)關(guān)于自訴程序的規(guī)定模糊、不完善，本文將針對(duì)目前自訴程序規(guī)定存在的問題展開論述。本文提出：首先，自訴案件的范圍過于寬泛，極大的增加了法院的辦案壓力；公訴權(quán)和自訴權(quán)行使沖突；使用不同的程序?qū)е虏煌脑V訟結(jié)果。其次，，應(yīng)在范圍上加以限定；理清自訴權(quán)和公訴權(quán)的復(fù)雜關(guān)系；在第二類自訴案件適用公訴程序時(shí)引入和解制度。前者是闡述我國(guó)目前第二類自訴案件存在的表面問題和深層問題，意圖從權(quán)利的起源上論證自訴權(quán)和公訴權(quán)的行使關(guān)系，并同時(shí)由自訴權(quán)和公訴權(quán)并存引出程序的可選擇性。后者則是就目前存在的問題提出自己的見解，充分尊重被害人的程序選擇權(quán)同時(shí)不損害公共利益，提出當(dāng)自訴權(quán)和公訴權(quán)行使發(fā)生沖突如何解決。具體的制度設(shè)計(jì)是：對(duì)第二類自訴案件的案件范圍做適當(dāng)修正；完善公安機(jī)關(guān)的告知制度，幫助被害人做出理智的選擇；檢察機(jī)關(guān)的自訴擔(dān)當(dāng)、發(fā)揮檢察機(jī)關(guān)的法律監(jiān)督作用；在偵查、起訴、審判階段適用和解制度同時(shí)對(duì)偵查階段的和解作嚴(yán)格限制，防止權(quán)力濫用。本文的創(chuàng)新性在于：不贊同將侵犯知識(shí)產(chǎn)權(quán)的輕微犯罪全部納入公訴范圍的傳統(tǒng)觀點(diǎn)；不討論自訴權(quán)與公訴權(quán)何者優(yōu)先，而是基于被害人的程序選擇權(quán)為基點(diǎn)；突出檢察機(jī)關(guān)在自訴案件中的全方位監(jiān)督作用，打破自訴案件僅限于自訴人和法院的局面；針對(duì)“同案不同判”現(xiàn)象頻發(fā)，適用公訴程序處理第二類自訴案件時(shí)適用和解制度。
[Abstract]:In human history, private prosecution is the earliest way to resolve disputes. In modern society, although the dominant position of private prosecution system has been gradually replaced by public prosecution, in some countries it has not completely withdrawn from the field of criminal proceedings. In our country, the scope of private prosecution cases is greatly expanded when the Criminal procedure Law is amended. However, in judicial practice, a large number of minor criminal cases are solved by public prosecution procedure, not by private prosecution procedure. Unscientific system design is one of the reasons leading to the violation of legislative intention and judicial practice. On the basis of maintaining the private prosecution system in a short period of time, how to ensure the rights and interests of the parties and save the valuable judicial resources through the scientific system design. The stipulation of private prosecution procedure in our country is vague and imperfect. This article will discuss the existing problems of private prosecution procedure. First of all, the scope of private prosecution cases is too broad, which greatly increases the pressure on the court to handle cases; the conflict between the exercise of the right of public prosecution and the right to appeal; the use of different procedures lead to different litigation results. Secondly, we should limit the scope, clarify the complex relationship between the private prosecution and the public prosecution, and introduce the reconciliation system when the public prosecution procedure is applied in the second kind of private prosecution cases. The former is to expound the superficial and deep problems existing in the second kind of private prosecution cases in our country at present, with the intention to demonstrate the relationship between the exercise of private prosecution right and public prosecution right from the origin of right, and at the same time to draw the optional procedure from the coexistence of private prosecution right and public prosecution right. The latter is to put forward their own views on the existing problems, fully respect the victim's right to choose procedure without harming public interests, and put forward how to resolve the conflict between the exercise of the right of private prosecution and the exercise of the right of public prosecution. The specific system design is as follows: making appropriate amendments to the scope of the second type of private prosecution cases; perfecting the public security organ's informing system to help the victims to make rational choices; the procuratorial organs' private prosecution to play the role of legal supervision of the procuratorial organs; In the investigation, prosecution and trial stage, the system of reconciliation should be applied and the reconciliation in the investigation stage should be strictly restricted to prevent abuse of power. The innovation of this paper lies in the following aspects: it does not agree with the traditional view that the minor crime of infringing intellectual property rights should be brought into the scope of public prosecution, and does not discuss which rights of private prosecution and the right of public prosecution take precedence, but based on the procedural option of the victim; In order to break the situation that private prosecution cases are limited to private prosecution and the court, the public prosecution procedure should be applied to deal with the second kind of private prosecution cases, and the reconciliation system should be applied when the phenomenon of "different judgments in the same case" occurs frequently.
【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】：2013
【分類號(hào)】：D925.2

【參考文獻(xiàn)】

相關(guān)期刊論文 前3條

1 陳曉明;;論修復(fù)性司法[J];法學(xué)研究;2006年01期

2 謝暉;;論“第二類自訴案件”訴權(quán)行使中的相關(guān)問題[J];理論界;2008年07期

3 劉英俊;中德刑事自訴制度比較研究[J];綿陽(yáng)師范學(xué)院學(xué)報(bào);2005年03期

本文編號(hào)：2337297