本文選題：刑事自訴圈 + 自訴��； 參考：《山東大學(xué)》2015年博士論文

【摘要】：我國(guó)刑事起訴制度實(shí)行公訴與自訴并行的雙軌制,其中公訴占據(jù)主體地位,自訴作為公訴制度的補(bǔ)充而出現(xiàn),二者共同構(gòu)建了我國(guó)的刑事追訴體系。在刑事自訴制度的諸多內(nèi)容中,刑事自訴圈的劃定即刑事自訴案件范圍的大小是刑事自訴制度理論與實(shí)踐中必須首先面對(duì)和解決的重要問(wèn)題,刑事自訴圈的合理與完善程度直接關(guān)系到自訴制度能否順利運(yùn)行及整個(gè)刑事司法功能是否得以有效發(fā)揮,對(duì)于刑事訴訟目的的實(shí)現(xiàn)具有重大的意義。1996年修正的刑事訴訟法對(duì)刑事自訴圈進(jìn)行了較為具體甚至頗具突破性的規(guī)定,大幅擴(kuò)張了自訴制度的適用空間,并首次創(chuàng)造性地規(guī)定了自訴對(duì)于公訴的監(jiān)督機(jī)制。然而由于立法技術(shù)的不足,加之相關(guān)制度的闕如,自訴案件的實(shí)踐運(yùn)行與立法原意存在明顯的悖離,而2012年新修訂的刑事訴訟法對(duì)此問(wèn)題并無(wú)涉及。因此有必要在系統(tǒng)梳理刑事自訴圈的演變規(guī)律及借鑒國(guó)外自訴圈立法模式的基礎(chǔ)上,立足于我國(guó)當(dāng)下社會(huì)轉(zhuǎn)型期的時(shí)代背景和自訴制度運(yùn)行的實(shí)證狀況,對(duì)刑事自訴制度進(jìn)行理性反思,重新合理劃定刑事自訴圈。本文共分為八部分。導(dǎo)論部分主要就本文的選題背景、國(guó)內(nèi)外的研究現(xiàn)狀、研究意義、研究思路及方法以及可能的創(chuàng)新點(diǎn)與不足等進(jìn)行了較為詳細(xì)的交代。第一章論述了刑事自訴制度存在的正當(dāng)性。訴權(quán)理論、刑事被害人理論、刑事訴訟謙抑理論、訴訟合意理論以及恢復(fù)性司法理論等理論對(duì)現(xiàn)代自訴制度的形成起到了積極的推動(dòng)作用,構(gòu)成了自訴制度的理論基礎(chǔ),也是其存在的正當(dāng)性與合理性的內(nèi)在依據(jù)。刑事自訴制度具有彌補(bǔ)公訴制度缺陷的制度性價(jià)值、有效節(jié)約司法資源的經(jīng)濟(jì)性價(jià)值、滿足多元主體需要的社會(huì)性價(jià)值、反映親親相隱訴訟心理及體現(xiàn)無(wú)訟追求觀念的社會(huì)性價(jià)值等價(jià)值蘊(yùn)含。同時(shí),刑事自訴制度能夠體現(xiàn)刑法的基本原則、落實(shí)寬嚴(yán)相濟(jì)的刑事政策。第二章對(duì)刑事自訴圈的建構(gòu)模式進(jìn)行了考察和歸納。根據(jù)世界主要國(guó)家(地區(qū))自訴圈立法的差異,刑事自訴圈的建構(gòu)模式主要分為自訴獨(dú)占模式、自訴與公訴并行模式和公訴壟斷下的“類自訴”模式三種。自訴獨(dú)占模式發(fā)端于初民社會(huì)的私力救濟(jì),主要存在于早期的刑事訴訟制度中,如古羅馬法、古日耳曼法以及英國(guó)1879年前的立法例。自訴與公訴并行模式是當(dāng)今世界存在數(shù)量最多且情形最為復(fù)雜的模式,根據(jù)自訴與公訴的關(guān)系以及兩者范圍的消長(zhǎng),又可細(xì)分為德國(guó)的自訴不斷擴(kuò)張模式、俄羅斯的公訴扶助自訴模式、中國(guó)臺(tái)灣的自訴公訴平分秋色模式、中國(guó)大陸的自訴公訴關(guān)系多元模式等幾種亞模式。其中,我國(guó)的自訴圈建構(gòu)的模式最為特殊：不僅自訴案件種類多,而且自訴案件與公訴案件之間關(guān)系復(fù)雜,分為“純自訴”、“自訴轉(zhuǎn)公訴”、“可公訴可自訴”、“公訴轉(zhuǎn)自訴”四種情形。公訴壟斷下的“類自訴”模式是指一國(guó)的刑事起訴權(quán)雖統(tǒng)一由國(guó)家行使,實(shí)行公訴壟斷,但在訴訟制度中存在有制約公訴權(quán)并體現(xiàn)自訴功能和價(jià)值的相關(guān)制度的一種特殊模式。由于各國(guó)訴訟制度和司法體制的差異,“類自訴”模式在不同國(guó)家樣態(tài)各異,其中美國(guó)的“類自訴”源于大陪審團(tuán)制度、日本源于準(zhǔn)起訴制度、法國(guó)源于民事原告人制度、意大利源于不告不理案件的存在。通過(guò)對(duì)刑事自訴的模式考察可知,雖然刑事起訴制度中公訴范圍不斷擴(kuò)大、自訴范圍不斷縮小已逐漸成為一種世界性趨勢(shì),但自訴制度一直具有頑強(qiáng)的生命力；即使在自訴缺失的國(guó)家,其“自訴意蘊(yùn)”仍然通過(guò)其他制度得以體現(xiàn)。除此之外,各國(guó)自訴圈的性質(zhì)、內(nèi)容都呈現(xiàn)出規(guī)律性特點(diǎn),這對(duì)于重構(gòu)我國(guó)刑事自訴圈提供了域外借鑒。第三章論述了重構(gòu)我國(guó)刑事自訴圈的必要性。我國(guó)刑事訴訟法關(guān)于自訴范圍的規(guī)定粗疏且紊亂,實(shí)踐中問(wèn)題重重,效果很不理想：自訴案件的公訴化現(xiàn)象嚴(yán)重；自訴案件的證據(jù)門檻過(guò)高；或公訴或自訴的選擇導(dǎo)致了“同案不同罰”的處理結(jié)果；自訴案件的類型失衡。在法定的三類自訴案件中,告訴才處理案件的“圈”劃得過(guò)寬,不僅暴力干涉婚姻自由罪、虐待罪和侵占罪納入此中的正當(dāng)性不足,而且侮辱罪和誹謗罪的自訴標(biāo)準(zhǔn)也不夠清晰,有擴(kuò)張性濫用之虞；被害人有證據(jù)證明的輕微刑事案件的“圈”邊界不明,缺乏明確的自訴與公訴并存時(shí)的沖突解決機(jī)制；“公訴轉(zhuǎn)自訴”案件的立法規(guī)定存在沖突,案件成立條件設(shè)定不夠嚴(yán)謹(jǐn),程序設(shè)置紊亂,導(dǎo)致司法機(jī)關(guān)在具體適用時(shí)無(wú)所適從,此類案件實(shí)踐中幾近名存實(shí)亡。第四章對(duì)影響刑事自訴圈重構(gòu)的因素進(jìn)行了類型化研究。一系列政治的、經(jīng)濟(jì)的、社會(huì)的、心理的、歷史的及文化的等因素都在影響和決定著刑事自訴案件范圍的大小。刑事自訴圈在重構(gòu)時(shí)要受到以人為本的民生政治因素、轉(zhuǎn)型了的權(quán)力斗爭(zhēng)哲學(xué)觀等哲學(xué)因素的影響,受新熟人社會(huì)及民間司法資源等社會(huì)現(xiàn)實(shí)和刑事自訴法文化傳統(tǒng)的制約,要考量公民對(duì)不法行為的寬容程度,衡量公民證據(jù)掌控能力的強(qiáng)弱,以及兼顧國(guó)際法治環(huán)境對(duì)本土立法的影響。第五章是我國(guó)刑事自訴圈重構(gòu)的具體設(shè)想,系統(tǒng)闡述了我國(guó)刑事自訴圈構(gòu)建的理念、原則及具體設(shè)計(jì)方案。在重構(gòu)刑事自訴圈時(shí)應(yīng)當(dāng)堅(jiān)持公訴與自訴關(guān)系協(xié)調(diào)原則、確定性與靈活性相結(jié)合原則、案件性質(zhì)與社會(huì)危害程度雙低原則、以及法益侵害的個(gè)人性原則等原則。對(duì)于告訴才處理的案件,應(yīng)當(dāng)將暴力干涉婚姻自由罪、虐待罪和部分侵占罪從自訴圈中剝離出去,同時(shí)吸納相關(guān)的親屬間財(cái)產(chǎn)型犯罪、侮辱尸體罪、無(wú)其他嚴(yán)重情節(jié)的非法侵入他人住宅罪、發(fā)生在親屬之間且無(wú)其他嚴(yán)重情節(jié)的過(guò)失致人重傷罪、發(fā)生在婚姻關(guān)系存續(xù)期間且無(wú)其他嚴(yán)重情節(jié)的強(qiáng)奸罪、發(fā)生在婚姻關(guān)系存續(xù)期間且無(wú)其他嚴(yán)重情節(jié)的強(qiáng)制猥褻、侮辱婦女罪等罪名；縮小司法解釋中列舉的“被害人有證據(jù)證明的輕微刑事案件”范圍；對(duì)于“公訴轉(zhuǎn)自訴”案件,應(yīng)當(dāng)通過(guò)制度改革來(lái)改變其近乎虛設(shè)的狀態(tài),將“公訴轉(zhuǎn)自訴”從自訴案件中分離,作為一項(xiàng)獨(dú)立的制度,其性質(zhì)為“被害人申請(qǐng)司法審查”制度,并對(duì)被害人申請(qǐng)司法審查的具體制度進(jìn)行了較為細(xì)致的設(shè)計(jì)。在上述具體制度設(shè)計(jì)的基礎(chǔ)上,提出“動(dòng)態(tài)自訴圈”的思路。刑事自訴圈并不是一成不變、靜止不動(dòng)的,而是隨著社會(huì)發(fā)展而動(dòng)態(tài)地變化,需要不斷調(diào)整和吐故納新。第六章對(duì)于刑事自訴圈重構(gòu)的配套制度進(jìn)行構(gòu)建。刑事自訴圈的劃定不是簡(jiǎn)單的公訴案件與自訴案件的范圍界分,而是“牽一發(fā)而動(dòng)全身”地受制又影響著其他多種制度。只有合理構(gòu)建與之相配套的制度,才能保證自訴圈不至于名存實(shí)亡,更好地發(fā)揮作用。一是調(diào)整自訴案件的證據(jù)制度,強(qiáng)化自訴人的證據(jù)收集權(quán)利、提高自訴人的證據(jù)收集能力；二是規(guī)范自訴案件的審判制度,主要從確立自訴案件時(shí)效制度、增設(shè)自訴案件缺席審判制度等方面進(jìn)行改革；三是健全自訴案件的監(jiān)督救濟(jì)制度,包括完善刑事自訴案件的審判監(jiān)督制度、建立刑事自訴強(qiáng)制代理制度以及強(qiáng)化刑事被害人法律援助制度；四是建立公安及檢察機(jī)關(guān)的自訴協(xié)助制度,明確公安機(jī)關(guān)處理自訴案件的程序,并構(gòu)建合理的自訴與公訴制度銜接機(jī)制。結(jié)語(yǔ)部分認(rèn)為在當(dāng)下世界多元化的背景下,以理性、寬容、漸進(jìn)、調(diào)和為價(jià)值觀的法律制度設(shè)計(jì)必將具有更強(qiáng)的生命力。寬容的理性是刑事自訴制度獨(dú)有的性格品質(zhì)特征,人性化的刑事自訴制度應(yīng)當(dāng)防止自身的過(guò)分激進(jìn)與擴(kuò)張,應(yīng)該保持一種自我克制。刑事訴訟應(yīng)當(dāng)秉承一種寬和理性的司法精神,以其人文關(guān)懷重構(gòu)法律與民眾之間缺失的親和力,司法人員應(yīng)當(dāng)以“服務(wù)公民的主體性理念”去踐行一種寬和的司法精神。
[Abstract]:The system of criminal prosecution in our country implements the double track system of public prosecution and private prosecution, in which public prosecution occupies the main position and the private prosecution is the supplement of the public prosecution system. The two parties have jointly established the criminal prosecution system in our country. In many contents of the criminal prosecution system, the size of the criminal self-prosecution case is the size of the criminal self prosecution case. The theory and practice of the prosecution system must first face and solve the important problems. The rationality and perfection of the criminal prosecution circle is directly related to the smooth operation of the private prosecution system and whether the whole criminal judicial function can be played effectively, and the realization of the criminal procedure is of great significance to the criminal procedure law amended in.1996 years. There are more specific and even breakthrough provisions in the private prosecution circle, which greatly expand the application space of the private prosecution system, and for the first time creatively stipulate the supervision mechanism of private prosecution for public prosecution. However, due to the lack of legislative technology and the lack of relevant systems, the practice of private prosecution cases is obviously contrary to the original intention of the legislation. The newly revised criminal procedure law in 2012 is not involved in this issue. Therefore, it is necessary to rethink the criminal self-prosecution system rationally on the basis of the systematic combing of the law of the evolution of the criminal prosecution circle and on the basis of the legislative mode of the foreign private prosecution circle, based on the background of the time of the social transformation and the demonstration of the operation of the system of self-prosecution in the present period of social transformation in China. This article is divided into eight parts. This article is divided into eight parts. The introduction part mainly deals with the background of the topic, the research status at home and abroad, the research significance, the research ideas and methods as well as the possible innovation and deficiency. The first chapter discusses the legitimacy of the existence of the system of criminal prosecution, the theory of the right of appeal and the penalty. The theory of victim, the theory of modesty in criminal litigation, the theory of litigation agreement and the theory of restorative justice have played an active role in promoting the formation of the modern self-prosecution system, and constitute the theoretical basis of the system of self-prosecution, and also the intrinsic basis for its legitimacy and rationality. The system of criminal prosecution has the defects of making up the system of public prosecution. The institutional value of the system can effectively save the economic value of judicial resources, meet the social values needed by multiple subjects, reflect the implicit litigation psychology of the relatives and the social value embodying the concept of non litigation. At the same time, the system of criminal prosecution can reflect the basic principle of criminal law and implement the criminal policy of tempering justice with mercy. Second chapters The construction mode of the criminal private prosecution circle is investigated and summarized. According to the difference of the legislation of the private prosecution circle in the main countries (regions) in the world, the construction mode of the criminal private prosecution circle is mainly divided into three types of private prosecution, the parallel mode of private prosecution and public prosecution and the "class private prosecution" mode under the monopoly of public prosecution. Force relief, mainly in the early criminal procedure system, such as the ancient Rome law, the ancient Germanic law and the legislative legislation before the 1879 in Britain. The parallel mode of private prosecution and public prosecution is the most complex pattern in the world, which is the most complex in the world. The mode of prosecution continues to expand, the private prosecution mode of Russian prosecution, the private prosecution in Taiwan, China's private prosecution and the multiple modes of private prosecution relations in the mainland of China. Among them, the pattern of the construction of private prosecution in China is the most special: the relationship between private prosecution cases and the relationship between private prosecution cases and public prosecution cases is the most special. It is divided into four kinds of cases: "pure private prosecution", "private prosecution to public prosecution", "public prosecution for private prosecution" and "private prosecution to self prosecution". The "private prosecution" mode under public prosecution monopoly means that the criminal prosecution right of a country is exercised in a unified state by the state and monopolized by public prosecution. However, there are restrictions on public prosecution and the function and value of self-prosecution in the system of litigation. A special model of the related system. Because of the differences in the litigation system and the judicial system of various countries, the "class self prosecution" pattern varies in different countries. Among them, the "class private prosecution" in the United States originated from the grand jury system, Japan originated from the quasi prosecution system, the French originated from the civil plaintiff system, and the Italy originated from the existence of the case. After the investigation of the mode of criminal prosecution, it can be seen that although the scope of public prosecution in the criminal prosecution system is constantly expanding and the scope of private prosecution has been gradually reduced, it has gradually become a worldwide trend, but the system of private prosecution has always been of tenacious vitality. Even in the country where private prosecution is missing, its "private prosecution" is still reflected through other systems. In addition, the nature and content of the private prosecution circle of all countries show regular characteristics, which provides foreign reference for the reconstruction of the criminal private prosecution circle in China. The third chapter discusses the necessity of reconstructing the criminal private prosecution circle of our country. The criminal procedure law of China is rough and disorganized about the scope of the private prosecution, the problems in the practice are numerous and the effect is very unsatisfactory: the case of private prosecution: the case of private prosecution The phenomenon of public prosecution is serious; the evidence threshold of private prosecution cases is too high; or the choice of public prosecution or private prosecution leads to the treatment of "the different punishment of the same case"; the type of self prosecution case is unbalanced. In the three legal cases, it is told that the "circle" of the case is too wide, not only the violent interference of the crime of freedom of marriage, the abuse of the crime and the encroachment. The legitimacy of the crime is insufficient, and the standard of self prosecution for the offense of insult and libel is not clear enough. There is a danger of expansionary abuse; the "circle" boundary of the minor criminal cases proved by the victim is unknown, and the conflict resolution mechanism is lack of clear prosecution and public prosecution; the legislation of "public prosecution to private prosecution" is stipulated in the legislation. In the conflict, the setting conditions of the case are not strict and the procedure is set in disorder, which leads to the judiciary in the concrete application of the case. In the practice of such cases, the fourth chapters make a typed study of the factors affecting the reconstruction of the criminal private prosecution circle. A series of political, economic, social, psychological, historical and cultural. All these factors affect and determine the size of the criminal prosecution case range. The criminal self-prosecution circle should be influenced by the people based people's livelihood political factors, the philosophical view of the transformation of the power struggle and other philosophical factors, which are restricted by the social reality of new acquaintances and the civil judicial resources and the cultural tradition of the criminal self-prosecution law. The tolerance of the citizens to the wrongful act, the strength of the civil evidence control ability, and the influence of the international rule of law environment on the local legislation. The fifth chapter is the concrete assumption of the reconstruction of the criminal private prosecution circle in our country, and systematically expounds the concept, principle and specific design scheme of the construction of the criminal private prosecution circle in China. We should adhere to the principle of the coordination of the relationship between public prosecution and private prosecution, the principle of combination of certainty and flexibility, the principle of both the nature of the case and the degree of social harm, and the principle of the personal nature of the infringement of the legal interests. The crime of property type between related relatives, the crime of insulting the corpse, the crime of invading other people's residence without other serious circumstances, the serious injury caused by the negligence of other serious circumstances between relatives and no other serious circumstances, the crime of rape occurring during the duration of marriage and without other serious circumstances, occurred during the duration of marriage and without any other strictness. The compulsory indecency of the plot, the crime of insulting women and so on; narrowing the scope of "the minor criminal case of the evidence of the victim" in the judicial interpretation; for the case of "prosecution to self prosecution", the state should be changed by system reform to separate the "private prosecution" from the case of self prosecution. The nature of the system is "the victim application for judicial review" system, and a detailed design of the specific system for the application of the victim's judicial review. On the basis of the design of the specific system, the idea of "dynamic private prosecution circle" is put forward. The criminal private prosecution circle is not 10% constant, still immovable, but with the development of the society. The sixth chapter is to construct the supporting system of the reconfiguration of the criminal private prosecution circle. The delimitation of the criminal private prosecution circle is not the scope of the simple public prosecution case and the private prosecution case, but the system of "pulling one's whole body" and affecting a variety of other systems. The supporting system can ensure that the private prosecution circle is not worthy of death and play a better role. One is to adjust the evidence system of the case of private prosecution, to strengthen the right to collect the evidence of the private prosecution and to improve the ability of the self prosecutor to collect evidence; two, to standardize the trial system of private prosecution cases, and to increase the lack of private prosecution cases. The three is to improve the supervision and relief system of private prosecution cases, including the trial supervision system of the criminal self-prosecution cases, the establishment of the compulsory agent system for criminal prosecution and the strengthening of the legal aid system for the criminal victims; four, the self-prosecution assistance system for the establishment of public security and procuratorial organs, and the clear office of the public security organs. The conclusion is that in the background of the pluralism of the world, the design of the legal system which is rational, tolerant, progressive and harmonized as values will have stronger vitality. The reason of tolerance is the characteristic character of character and humanization of the criminal self-prosecution system. The criminal prosecution system should prevent its own excessively radical and expansion, and should maintain a kind of self-restraint. Criminal litigation should uphold a wide and rational judicial spirit, restructure the lack of affinity between the law and the public with its humanistic care, and the judiciary should practice a wide and broad sense of "the concept of the subjectivity of serving citizens". The spirit of judicature.

【學(xué)位授予單位】：山東大學(xué)
【學(xué)位級(jí)別】：博士
【學(xué)位授予年份】：2015
【分類號(hào)】：D925.2

【參考文獻(xiàn)】

相關(guān)期刊論文 前10條

1 尹麗華;論刑事自訴案件的幾個(gè)相關(guān)問(wèn)題[J];當(dāng)代法學(xué);2000年01期

2 周長(zhǎng)軍;;檢察起訴裁量權(quán)的國(guó)際發(fā)展趨勢(shì)與中國(guó)改革[J];東方法學(xué);2009年03期

3 周長(zhǎng)軍;;公訴權(quán)濫用論[J];法學(xué)家;2011年03期

4 崔敏;中國(guó)古代刑事訴訟法的揚(yáng)棄和借鑒[J];江蘇公安�？茖W(xué)校學(xué)報(bào);2002年03期

5 張嘉軍;;大陸法系刑事反訴制度及我國(guó)刑事反訴制度構(gòu)建[J];江蘇警官學(xué)院學(xué)報(bào);2007年05期

6 彭劍鳴;自訴案件訴前和解與調(diào)解后的起訴[J];貴州大學(xué)學(xué)報(bào)(社會(huì)科學(xué)版);2004年04期

7 彭劍鳴;;自訴案件與公訴案件合并審理的程序運(yùn)行[J];貴州民族學(xué)院學(xué)報(bào)(哲學(xué)社會(huì)科學(xué)版);2005年06期

8 吳衛(wèi)軍;我國(guó)刑事自訴制度的反思與重構(gòu)[J];河北大學(xué)學(xué)報(bào)(哲學(xué)社會(huì)科學(xué)版);2004年04期

9 張述周;;中國(guó)傳統(tǒng)無(wú)訟法律文化對(duì)構(gòu)建當(dāng)代和諧社會(huì)的影響[J];河南社會(huì)科學(xué);2007年06期

10 劉作凌;;我國(guó)刑事自訴制度的價(jià)值分析與重構(gòu)[J];廣西社會(huì)科學(xué);2008年07期

相關(guān)碩士學(xué)位論文 前4條

1 謝惠冕;我國(guó)刑事自訴制度研究[D];蘇州大學(xué);2005年

2 汪立慶;刑事自訴案件若干法律問(wèn)題研究[D];華東政法大學(xué);2007年

3 雷春;刑事自訴案件調(diào)查研究[D];四川大學(xué);2006年

4 崔永剛;刑事自訴制度中被害人權(quán)利保護(hù)研究[D];中國(guó)政法大學(xué);2010年

，

本文編號(hào)：1887060