我国刑事强制措施异化问题研究

Function Deterioration of Criminal Coercive Measures

作者: 专业:诉讼法学 导师:杨可中 年度:2010  院校: 华东政法大学

Keywords

Criminal coercive measures, Function Deterioration, Legislative reform
        将刑事强制措施比作公民宪法权利的试金石,从中可以看出强制措施在诉讼保障中承担着重要的角色,但强制措施也是刑事诉讼程序中最易侵害人身权利的措施。2004年12月1日中央司法体制改革小组《关于司法体制和工作机制改革的初步意见》提出:“建立和完善羁押工作制度。完善羁押期限的法律规定,建立健全刑事诉讼工作环节的衔接机制,完善财产保证及保释制度,严格责任追究制度,切实防止和纠正对犯罪嫌疑人的超期羁押以及办案超时限问题。检察机关应加强对羁押工作的监督。”五年多来,我们可以看到这些改革离司法为民的宗旨,维护社会公平正义的要求,还有一定距离。而《刑事诉讼法》自1996年修订至今十多年,是否存在有法难行、应予以重新检讨之处?尤其近年来一些疑案、错案在媒体的曝光之下皆引起了民众对司法改革投入更多的关注。在这样的大背景之下,讨论刑事强制措施的功能在实践中为何异化、如何异化、如何去规范这一措施的问题有一定的价值。基于上述研究动机,本文第一章将分析我国现有的刑事强制措施异化的现象;第二章中,先阐述刑事强制措施应当具备的程序内在价值;在分析强制措施应当具有的法定功能;在此参照之下,解释我国刑事强制措施在实务中异化的原因;第三章运用比较研究,将英美法系之注重权利保障而严格限制权力型、大陆法系之注重社会安全与犯罪控制型、混合模式日本法之严格周到型,以及我国的港澳台地区相关的立法,从中得到启示。第四章在上述分析的基础之上,理顺刑事诉讼强制措施的“拘留”与“逮捕”的用语问题,探讨批准逮捕的权力归属,借鉴令状原则的合理因素,建立逮捕制度;其次将“羁押”从现有的逮捕当中分离出来,建立羁押制度;第三,评估我国引入法官保留原则的可行性,以此建立羁押的复审制度;第四,分析监视居住的取消可能性,完善取保候审制度;最后,完善律师在刑事强制措施适用中的作用。笔者希望经过自己的研究与提出浅见对改革现行的刑事强制措施有所帮助。
    That the criminal coercive measures is the seismometer of the constitution and a touchstone of the constitutional rights of citizens means measures of protection in the proceedings to assume an important role, but it is also the most likely criminal proceedings against the personal rights, freedom of the measures. December 1, 2004 the Central Judicial Reform Group“on the reform of the judicial system and working mechanism of the initial Opinions”:“to establish and improve the custody system of work. Improve the detention period for legal requirements, establish and improve the criminal aspects of the convergence mechanism to work, improve the property and the bail system to ensure strict accountability system to effectively prevent and correct the extended detention of criminal suspects as well as handling the problem over time. The procuratorial organ should strengthen the supervision and custody work.”Far more than five years, we can see that is far from the implementation of judicial reform, that is not to meet the growing legal needs of the people, safeguard social fairness and justice demands a certain distance. The revised Code of Criminal Procedure since 1996 has more than ten years, whether the law is difficult to perform, and should be re-review? Especially in recent years a number of disputed cases, wrong cases are under exposure in the media caused people to spend more attention to judicial reform. In this background, to discuss the function of criminal coercive measures why to deteriorate in practice, how to deteriorate and how to standardize this measure is valuable.Based on the above motivation, the first chapter will analyse the existing the phenomenon of deterioration criminal coercive measures;In the second chapter, first to the criminal procedure for compulsory measures should have intrinsic value; in the analysis of coercive measures should have the statutory functions; In this reference under the interpretation of criminal coercive measures in practice, deterioration reasons;In the third chapter, the use of a comparative study of the common law of rights-protected and strictly limit the type of power, the Civil Law of the emphasis on social security and crime control, mixed mode of the strict Japanese law thoughtful type, and China’s Hong Kong, Macao and Taiwan areas related to legislation, from thought.Chapter IV on the basis of the above analysis, streamline criminal coercive measures "detention" and "arrest" of the language problems, and approve the authority of the arrest, and learn from the rational factors of the warrant the establishment of the arrest system;“custody”is separated from out of the existing arrest system; thirdly, to assess the feasibility of the introduction of Judge reservation system, in order to build custody review system; fourthly, the possibility of cancellation of residential surveillance, improve the bail system; the final, we shall improve the application of coercive measures in the criminal lawyer’s role.The author hopes that through the research and a little suggestion was helpful to change the existing criminal coercive measures.
        

我国刑事强制措施异化问题研究

摘要4-6
Abstract6-7
前言10-11
第一章 当前我国刑事强制措施异化的现象11-14
    第一节 由案例引入11-12
    第二节 刑事逮捕易成为拘留的必然结果12
    第三节 “证据”成为功能异化的突破口12-13
    第四节 强制措施变更的情形使得功能落空13-14
    第五节 强制措施规定的不严谨为惩罚性异化提供出路14
第二章 我国刑事强制措施的功能探析14-26
    第一节 刑事强制措施应当具备的程序内在价值14-16
        一、程序的合理性14-15
        二、程序的对等性15
        三、程序的效益性15-16
        四、程序的人道性16
    第二节 探析我国刑事强制措施的法定功能16-18
        一、约束与限制国家权力、保障基本人权的功能16-17
        二、保障诉讼顺利进行的功能17
        三、对继续犯罪的预防功能17-18
    第三节 对实务中强制措施功能异化的现象探析18-26
        一、观念层面的原因分析18-20
        二、机制层面的原因分析20-22
        三、制度层面的解释——从程序构造角度出发22-26
第三章 域外相关立法以及启发26-29
    第一节 注重权利的严格限制型之英美法26-27
    第二节 注重安全的细致规范型之大陆法27-28
    第三节 混合模式下之日本法规定28
    第四节 启发28-29
第四章 改革现行强制措施的若干设想29-39
    第一节 坚持刑事程序法定原则29-30
    第二节 厘清拘留与逮捕、羁押的含义,取消“拘留”的用词30-31
    第三节 取消现行的监视居住措施31-32
    第四节 完善逮捕制度32-35
        一、无证逮捕的构建32
        二、有证逮捕的构建32-33
        三、有条件地构建“住地逮捕”33-34
        四、关于期限的规定34
        五、对自侦案件逮捕权的改革34-35
    第五节 合理配置“羁押”的批准权35-36
    第六节 引入法官保留原则,建立“羁押复查”制度36-37
    第七节 借鉴保释制度完善取保候审制度37-38
    第八节 强化律师的作用38-39
结语39-41
参考文献41-45
在读期间发表的学术论文与研究成果45-46
后记46-47
        下载全文需68


本文地址:

上一篇:金融领域基于风险的反洗钱机制构建
下一篇:新时期的知识产权犯罪研究

分享到: 分享我国刑事强制措施异化问题研究到腾讯微博           收藏
评论排行
频道总排行
频道本月排行