本文選題：死刑復(fù)核程序 + 人權(quán)��； 參考：《吉林大學(xué)》2016年博士論文

【摘要】：死刑即生命刑,是剝奪犯罪人生命的殘酷刑罰,所以在刑罰史上,死刑問題一直備受關(guān)注。死刑存廢問題的爭(zhēng)論,在我國(guó)理論界與司法界已基本達(dá)成共識(shí),廢除死刑在我國(guó)還有相當(dāng)長(zhǎng)的一段路要走。但限制死刑適用,確保死刑案件公正處理卻一直是刑事實(shí)體法和刑事程序法所共同追求的目標(biāo)。所以對(duì)死刑復(fù)核程序研究,自然成為刑事訴訟研究的核心之一。基于人權(quán)保護(hù)的理念,世界上保留死刑的國(guó)家對(duì)死刑案件的處理,都持有相當(dāng)審慎的態(tài)度,設(shè)置了極其嚴(yán)格的程序保障措施。在我國(guó),對(duì)死刑案件在二審終審制外又設(shè)立了特殊訴訟程序——死刑復(fù)核程序,即由最高人民法院對(duì)判處死刑的案件進(jìn)行審查核準(zhǔn)的一道特殊刑事訴訟程序。其作用就是為被告人提供再多一次的法律救濟(jì)機(jī)會(huì),充分體現(xiàn)程序正義的要求,能夠更加嚴(yán)格、審慎地適用死刑這一最嚴(yán)厲的刑罰,確保死刑案件得到公正處理。死刑復(fù)核是我國(guó)一項(xiàng)歷史悠久的法律制度。它源于漢朝、定于隋唐、成熟于明清,前后歷經(jīng)二千余年。新中國(guó)成立以后,在訴訟制度中該項(xiàng)程序得以保留。在建國(guó)后的法治建設(shè)中,死刑復(fù)核權(quán)的最終歸屬也是幾經(jīng)輾轉(zhuǎn),往返流轉(zhuǎn)于最高人民法院與高級(jí)人民法院之間。2007年1月1日,最高人民法院正式收回了下放二十多年的死刑復(fù)核權(quán),這是我國(guó)刑事司法制度上的一次重大進(jìn)步。2012年3月14日,全國(guó)人大第五次會(huì)議又通過(guò)了對(duì)《刑事訴訟法》的修訂,在第三編第四章單獨(dú)規(guī)定了死刑復(fù)核程序,用了六條對(duì)該程序進(jìn)行原則性規(guī)定。經(jīng)過(guò)8年多的司法實(shí)踐,最高人民法院通過(guò)死刑復(fù)核程序?qū)λ佬贪讣M(jìn)行核準(zhǔn),對(duì)保障死刑案件的質(zhì)量、統(tǒng)一死刑適用標(biāo)準(zhǔn)、保障人權(quán)等發(fā)揮了重要作用。但是,由于只有六條的原則規(guī)定,對(duì)于探究死刑復(fù)核程序的內(nèi)涵是遠(yuǎn)遠(yuǎn)不夠的。該項(xiàng)制度從啟動(dòng)到最終判決的各個(gè)階段,設(shè)計(jì)還不盡合理。這與沒有真正認(rèn)清死刑復(fù)核程序相對(duì)于其他刑事訴訟程序具有顯著的學(xué)術(shù)特征和獨(dú)有的理論品格有關(guān)。因此,對(duì)我國(guó)死刑復(fù)核程序重新審視和完善,可以推動(dòng)死刑相關(guān)制度乃至整個(gè)刑事訴訟制度的發(fā)展,以及對(duì)保障人權(quán)等都具有非常重大的意義。本文分為緒論和正文兩個(gè)部分。緒論中,依次介紹了選題背景和研究意義、文獻(xiàn)的研究熱點(diǎn)分布和前沿方向、論文主要觀點(diǎn)和創(chuàng)新內(nèi)容以及論文所采用的主要研究方法。正文分五個(gè)章節(jié),從三方面對(duì)死刑復(fù)核程序進(jìn)行了相關(guān)研究。首先,回顧了我國(guó)死刑復(fù)核權(quán)的變遷歷程并對(duì)變遷原因進(jìn)行分析,對(duì)域外死刑救濟(jì)程序進(jìn)行考察,為我國(guó)死刑復(fù)核程序的完善提供思路。對(duì)死刑復(fù)核程序的基礎(chǔ)問題進(jìn)行了理論探討,對(duì)死刑復(fù)核程序的人權(quán)保障以及公正與效率方面的價(jià)值進(jìn)行研究,從憲政的理念強(qiáng)調(diào)死刑復(fù)核程序在保障人權(quán)方面的重要性。明確了在普通刑事案件的審理中,公正與效率價(jià)值是并重的,但死刑復(fù)核程序的設(shè)計(jì)則更多的體現(xiàn)了對(duì)公正的追求,更加側(cè)重公正價(jià)值的體現(xiàn)。死刑復(fù)核程序是對(duì)死刑復(fù)核權(quán)的程序設(shè)計(jì),所以本文對(duì)死刑復(fù)核權(quán)的基本屬性也展開了討論,在厘清死刑復(fù)核權(quán)性質(zhì)的基礎(chǔ)上,又分析了死刑復(fù)核程序結(jié)構(gòu)(控辯審三方的地位、關(guān)系)的問題。通過(guò)對(duì)死刑復(fù)核程序性質(zhì)及結(jié)構(gòu)的分析可以得知:只有在控辯審三方面地位予以明確、將審判權(quán)置于法律監(jiān)督之下的完整訴訟構(gòu)造,才能真正實(shí)現(xiàn)死刑復(fù)核程序保護(hù)人權(quán)等方面的獨(dú)特價(jià)值,實(shí)現(xiàn)其公平正義、權(quán)力制約、保護(hù)法益的功能。雖然,我國(guó)死刑復(fù)核程序經(jīng)過(guò)較長(zhǎng)時(shí)間的發(fā)展,但在控辯審三方面的權(quán)力與關(guān)系劃分上仍存在很多問題,所以,在第三章筆者對(duì)我國(guó)現(xiàn)行死刑復(fù)核程序的現(xiàn)狀進(jìn)行研究,提出死刑復(fù)核程序中存在的主要焦點(diǎn)問題。在審判環(huán)節(jié)中,法院在審判理念、死刑復(fù)核案件的啟動(dòng)和管轄、合議庭人數(shù)的規(guī)定,以及審理期限缺失等方面都有不足;檢察機(jī)關(guān)對(duì)死刑復(fù)核案件缺少法律監(jiān)督;辯護(hù)權(quán)的行使還存在障礙等;分析了輿論關(guān)注和被害人的意愿對(duì)我國(guó)死刑復(fù)核產(chǎn)生的影響。在第四章與前面所提問題相對(duì)應(yīng),筆者提出了如何完善審判權(quán)、檢察權(quán)、辯護(hù)權(quán)的具體思路和設(shè)想。應(yīng)立足于司法實(shí)踐,對(duì)我國(guó)死刑復(fù)核程序進(jìn)行訴訟化改造,為今后建立死刑案件的三審終審制度奠定基礎(chǔ)。相信這些設(shè)想的提出,能夠有助于死刑復(fù)核程序的立法完善,實(shí)現(xiàn)死刑復(fù)核程序從形式理性向價(jià)值理性的轉(zhuǎn)變。應(yīng)采取根據(jù)不同案件的情況,采取不同的程序的完善路徑。第一,被告人對(duì)案件認(rèn)定事實(shí)、證據(jù)采信以及法律適用上沒有異議,檢察機(jī)關(guān)也沒有提出抗訴的案件,法院經(jīng)審查也認(rèn)為不存在實(shí)體錯(cuò)誤和程序違法等情況的,適用書面閱卷審理方式。主要把握死刑政策與統(tǒng)一適用問題。但是在復(fù)核過(guò)程中,法官必須提審被告人,辯護(hù)律師應(yīng)當(dāng)提出意見,對(duì)于辯護(hù)律師的意見法官必須傾聽并入卷,檢察機(jī)關(guān)應(yīng)當(dāng)提出意見,且最終的裁判結(jié)果必須送達(dá)最高人民檢察院。第二,被告人或檢察機(jī)關(guān)對(duì)案件事實(shí)認(rèn)定、證據(jù)采信、法律適用等有異議,則應(yīng)采取開庭審理的程序,將控辯審三方均納入到死刑復(fù)核庭審中來(lái),三方共同參與、控辯雙方充分發(fā)表意見,最后由最高人民法院裁判。與庭審程序改革相適應(yīng),還要加強(qiáng)檢察機(jī)關(guān)的法律監(jiān)督地位,完善監(jiān)督的方式與方法。同時(shí)還要通過(guò)立法保障被告人、辯護(hù)律師的辯護(hù)權(quán)以及被害人適時(shí)發(fā)表意見的權(quán)利。這種有條件的開庭制度,在我國(guó)現(xiàn)階能夠節(jié)約訴訟資源,在保證訴訟效率的前提下,實(shí)現(xiàn)死刑復(fù)核的程序公正和保護(hù)人權(quán)。最后,筆者對(duì)我國(guó)死刑復(fù)核程序予以展望:隨著死刑案件的減少,司法資源的擴(kuò)充,在適當(dāng)時(shí)機(jī),我國(guó)應(yīng)建立死刑案件的三審終審制,體現(xiàn)公開審判這一基本的刑事訴訟原則,維護(hù)程序的正當(dāng)性。正如羅賓·馬赫所言:我們的挑戰(zhàn),是為一個(gè)制度性的改變而奮斗,保證那些面臨死刑的人能夠通過(guò)正當(dāng)?shù)某绦?公平而平等地獲得正義。在死刑案件的三審程序中,應(yīng)由檢察機(jī)關(guān)抗訴或被告人上訴作為程序啟動(dòng)的開始;對(duì)檢察機(jī)關(guān)與被告人均未提出抗訴或上訴的案件,以“強(qiáng)制上訴”作為例外,由高級(jí)人民法院報(bào)請(qǐng)至最高人民法院,通過(guò)這種啟動(dòng)方式維護(hù)司法被動(dòng)性原則與審判的中立地位。在審理時(shí),應(yīng)采用全面開庭程序,庭審由控辯雙方各自舉證、質(zhì)證,法院居中裁判。法院審理案件采取定罪與量刑分開的審理模式,對(duì)于定罪無(wú)疑異的案件,庭審的重點(diǎn)在于死刑是否適用問題。配合定罪與量刑分開的庭審方式,建立死刑復(fù)核案件的社區(qū)調(diào)查制度。死刑案件的社會(huì)調(diào)查報(bào)告,其設(shè)置目的是為審理死刑案件的法官提供死刑裁量的參考和素材,讓法官全面了解被告人的各方面情況進(jìn)而判斷其社會(huì)危害性和人身危險(xiǎn)性。對(duì)重大復(fù)雜案件,建立專家聽證制度,由專家、學(xué)者幫助解決理論上的疑難問題,增加判決權(quán)威性。同時(shí)對(duì)輿論關(guān)注的案件也可以適用聽證程序,增加案件審理的透明度,消除社會(huì)各界對(duì)案件的猜測(cè),使死刑案件三審終審制實(shí)質(zhì)化,提高審判公信力。
[Abstract]:Death penalty, life punishment, is a cruel penalty to deprive the offender's life, so the question of death penalty has been paid much attention in the history of punishment. The debate on the issue of death penalty has basically reached consensus between the theory and the judiciary in our country, and the abolition of death penalty has a long way to go in our country. However, the application of the death penalty to ensure the fair treatment of the death penalty cases. It has always been the goal of the criminal substantive law and the criminal procedure law. Therefore, the study of the procedure for the review of the death penalty is one of the core of the criminal procedure research. Based on the concept of human rights protection, the country with the death penalty in the world has a very prudent attitude to the handling of the death penalty cases, and has set a very strict procedural protection. In our country, in China, the death penalty case in the second instance of the final trial system has been set up a special procedure - the death penalty review procedure, that is, a special criminal procedure which is approved by the Supreme People's court for the death penalty cases. Its role is to provide the defendant with a number of legal remedies, fully embodying the procedure. The request of righteousness, can be more strict, carefully apply the death penalty this most severe penalty, ensure the death penalty case get the fair treatment. The death penalty review is our country a long history legal system. It originated in the Han Dynasty, the Sui and Tang Dynasties, mature in Ming and Qing Dynasty, after more than two thousand years. After the founding of new China, the procedure was allowed in the litigation system. In the construction of the rule of law after the founding of the people's Republic of China, the final attribution of the death penalty review right is also a few passes, the return of the Supreme People's court and the high people's court in January 1st of.2007, the Supreme People's court officially reclaimed the death penalty review right for more than 20 years, which is a major progress in the criminal justice system of our country.2012 year 3. On 14 July, the fifth meeting of the National People's Congress passed the revision of the criminal procedure law. In the fourth chapter of the third edition, the death penalty review procedure was separately stipulated, and six principles were used in the procedure. After more than 8 years of judicial practice, the Supreme People's court approved the death penalty case through the death penalty review process, and ensured the death penalty case. The quality, the standard of applying the death penalty and the protection of human rights have played an important role. However, because there are only six principles, it is far from enough to explore the connotation of the procedure for the review of the death penalty. The system is not reasonably designed from the start to the final judgment. His criminal procedure has significant academic characteristics and unique theoretical character. Therefore, the reexamination and improvement of the procedure for the review of death penalty in China can promote the development of the death penalty related system and the whole criminal procedure system, as well as the protection of human rights. This paper is divided into two parts: Introduction and text. In the introduction, the background and significance of the topic are introduced in turn, the focus distribution and the forward direction of the literature, the main points of the paper, the innovation content and the main research methods used in the paper. The text is divided into five chapters, and the related research on the review procedure of death penalty is carried out from three aspects. First, it reviews the change calendar of the death penalty review right in China. The analysis of the reasons for the change and the investigation of the extraterritorial death penalty relief program provides a way of thinking for the improvement of the procedure for the review of death penalty in China. The theoretical discussion is made on the basic issues of the procedure for the review of the death penalty, the protection of human rights and the value of justice and efficiency in the procedure of the review of the death penalty, and the emphasis on the death penalty from the idea of constitutional government. The importance of the nuclear program in the protection of human rights. It is clear that in the trial of ordinary criminal cases, the value of justice and efficiency is equal, but the design of the death penalty review procedure is more embodied in the pursuit of justice and more impartial value. The death penalty review procedure is the procedure of the rechecking of the death penalty, so this article is dead. The basic attribute of the right to review the sentence has also been discussed. On the basis of clarifying the nature of the death penalty review right, it also analyzes the problem of the structure of the death penalty review procedure (the status and the relationship between the three parties and the defense and the defense). Through the analysis of the nature and structure of the procedure for the review of the death penalty, it can be found that only in the three aspects of the accusation and trial, the judicial power is placed in the law. The complete litigation structure under the supervision of law can truly realize the unique value of the death penalty review procedure to protect human rights, realize its fair and justice, the power restriction, and protect the function of the legal interest. Although the procedure for the review of death penalty has been developed for a long time, there are still many problems in the division of power and relations between the three aspects of the accusation and trial. Therefore, in the third chapter, the author studies the current status of the current procedure for the review of the death penalty in China, and puts forward the main focus of the procedure for the review of the death penalty. In the trial link, the court has shortcomings in the trial concept, the start and jurisdiction of the death penalty review case, the number of the collegial panels, and the absence of the trial period. The case of death penalty review is lack of legal supervision and the exercise of the right of defense has obstacles, and the influence of the public opinion and the will of the victim on the review of the death penalty in China is analyzed. In the fourth chapter, the author puts forward the concrete ideas and ideas on how to perfect the judicial power, the procuratorial power and the right to defend. In order to establish the basis for the establishment of the three final trial system for the death penalty case, it is believed that these proposals will help to improve the legislation of the procedure for the review of death penalty, and to realize the transformation of the procedure for the review of death penalty from form reason to value rationality. First, the defendant has no objection to the facts of the case, the evidence collection and the application of the law. The procuratorial organ has not put forward the case of protest, and the court has also considered that there are no substantive errors and illegal procedures. Question. But in the process of reviewing, the judge must try the accused, the defense lawyer should put forward his opinion, the judge must listen to the incorporation, the procuratorial organ should put forward the opinion, and the final result must be sent to the Supreme People's Procuratorate. Second, the defendant or the procuratorial organ affirms the case facts and evidence. When there is objection to the acceptance of the letter and the application of the law, the procedure of hearing the trial shall be taken, and the three parties shall be included in the trial of the death penalty review, the three parties participate together, the two parties will fully express their opinions, and finally the judges of the Supreme People's court will be judged. The legal supervision status of the procuratorial organs should be strengthened and the supervision should be improved. At the same time, we should guarantee the defendant, the right to defend the defense lawyer and the right of the victim to express the opinion in a timely manner. This conditional opening system can save the litigation resources and realize the procedure justice and the protection of human rights under the premise of guaranteeing the efficiency of the lawsuit. Finally, the author is to our country. The procedure of the review of the death penalty is expected: with the reduction of death penalty cases and the expansion of judicial resources, in the appropriate time, China should establish the final three trial system of the death penalty case, reflecting the basic criminal procedure principle of public trial and maintaining the legitimacy of the procedure. As Robin Maher said, our challenge is to be excited for a institutional change. Fight to ensure that those who face the death penalty can obtain justice fairly and equally through proper procedures. In the three trial procedure of the death penalty case, the prosecution or defendant appeals should be initiated at the start of the procedure; the cases of no protest or appeal to the procuratorial organs and the defendants, with the exception of "compulsory appeal", are taken as an exception. The high people's court has reported to the Supreme People's court to maintain the passive principle of judicature and the neutrality of the trial by this way of starting. In the trial, the court should adopt a comprehensive trial procedure. The trial shall be given by both the prosecution and the prosecution, the quality of the court and the court in the court. In case of doubt, the key point of the trial lies in the application of the death penalty. The community investigation system of the death penalty review case is set up with the trial mode separated by the conviction and the sentencing. The social investigation report of the death penalty case is set up to provide the judge for the death penalty for the judges of the death penalty case and the judge to understand the defendant in an all-round way. To judge the social harmfulness and the personal danger of all aspects of the person, the expert hearing system is established for the major complex cases, the experts and the scholars help to solve the difficult problems in the theory and increase the authority of the judgment. At the same time, the hearing procedure can be applied to the cases concerned with public opinion, and the transparency of the case trial can be increased and the social circles are eliminated. The speculation of the case will make the three instance final system of the death penalty substantive and improve the credibility of the trial.

【學(xué)位授予單位】：吉林大學(xué)
【學(xué)位級(jí)別】：博士
【學(xué)位授予年份】：2016
【分類號(hào)】：D925.2

【參考文獻(xiàn)】

相關(guān)期刊論文 前10條

1 徐岱;;美國(guó)死刑走向廢除的障礙及啟示[J];吉林大學(xué)社會(huì)科學(xué)學(xué)報(bào);2014年06期

2 夏勇;吳玲;;“死囚等待”——美國(guó)的不立即執(zhí)行死刑制度及其啟示[J];吉林大學(xué)社會(huì)科學(xué)學(xué)報(bào);2014年02期

3 汪建成;;《刑事訴訟法》的核心觀念及認(rèn)同[J];中國(guó)社會(huì)科學(xué);2014年02期

4 魏昌東;;美國(guó)憲法修正案與其死刑制度改革[J];法學(xué)評(píng)論;2014年01期

5 趙秉志;;當(dāng)代中國(guó)死刑改革爭(zhēng)議問題論要[J];法律科學(xué)(西北政法大學(xué)學(xué)報(bào));2014年01期

6 李?yuàn)^飛;;美國(guó)死刑冤案證據(jù)剖析及其啟示[J];中國(guó)人民大學(xué)學(xué)報(bào);2013年06期

7 趙秉志;苗苗;;論國(guó)際人權(quán)法規(guī)范對(duì)當(dāng)代中國(guó)死刑改革的促進(jìn)作用[J];吉林大學(xué)社會(huì)科學(xué)學(xué)報(bào);2013年04期

8 陳學(xué)權(quán);;論刑事訴訟中實(shí)體公正與程序公正的并重[J];法學(xué)評(píng)論;2013年04期

9 陳光中;;比較法視野下的中國(guó)特色司法獨(dú)立原則[J];比較法研究;2013年02期

10 卞建林;;以死刑案件為切入點(diǎn) 建立程序制裁機(jī)制[J];人民檢察;2007年23期

相關(guān)博士學(xué)位論文 前5條

1 王磊;故意殺人罪死刑司法限制研究[D];吉林大學(xué);2014年

2 安曦萌;中美刑事政策比較研究[D];復(fù)旦大學(xué);2013年

3 張健;死刑適用之實(shí)質(zhì)條件研究[D];西南政法大學(xué);2013年

4 陳瑩瑩;刑事檢察監(jiān)督的程序化研究[D];復(fù)旦大學(xué);2011年

5 孫寶民;死刑檢察監(jiān)督制度研究[D];武漢大學(xué);2011年

，

本文編號(hào)：1812212