辩护律师庭外言论法律规制研究

发布时间：2018-05-11 11:59

本文选题：辩护律师 + 庭外言论　；参考：《湘潭大学》2017年硕士论文

【摘要】：在如今的网络化时代,我国辩护律师庭外言论的状况也发生了很大的变化。通过微博、博客等网络新媒体发布的庭外言论具有传播更迅速、更具互动性,言论内容更具主观性等特点。在一定程度上,辩护律师发表庭外言论有利于实现公众的知情权,反映司法中的问题,对司法机关违法行为进行有效监督。与此同时,辩护律师庭外言论如果未能合理规制,也可能出现侵犯当事人的权益、影响公正审判、增加律师职业风险等严重危害。最近几年里,在我国的司法实践中因辩护律师的庭外言论问题给司法方面带来了很大的挑战。在“李天一案”、“北海案”等案件中,辩护律师的庭外言论造成了很大的舆论影响,甚至影响了审判结果。而我国在此方面还未形成系统、全面的规制,立法层面也存在一定的空白,未能给辩护律师提供一个较为明确的行为指引。所以,我们需要尽快的完善相关的规制规则。辩护律师的庭外言论规制问题也受到了各个国家的广泛关注。域外对于辩护律师庭外言论的规制目前主要存在英国、德国等的“严格禁止模式”和美国的“底线标准模式”这两种规制模式,通过比较分析,美国的“底线标准模式”设置律师庭外言论的合理边界,隔断其弊端的同时也能保证律师庭外言论的积极作用的发挥,相比于“一刀切”的“严格禁止模式”更能为我国律师庭外言论规则的确定提供一个有效的指导作用。我国目前正处于较为特殊的司法环境与体制之中,应当考虑到具体国情,不能照搬国外的规定,而是在借鉴“底线标准模式”规定的基础上,参考一些有针对性的建议,改善我国辩护律师在庭外言论规制中的标准模糊、规制措施惩戒力度不足、律师协会规制滞后,救济程序缺失等外部问题以及律师自身职业道德失范的内部问题,从而提出相应建议,包括在规制标准上区分一般标准与例外规定,完善律师协会的规制与民事责任的规制、刑事责任的规制相衔接的多元化规制措施,明确司法行政机关的救济主体身份并在救济的复查程序中借鉴庭审模式,同时加强律师自身的职业道德建设等四个方面。
[Abstract]:In today's networked era, the situation of defense lawyers speaking out of court has also changed a lot. The new media such as Weibo, blog and so on have the characteristics of more rapid communication, more interactive, more subjective content and so on. To a certain extent, it is helpful to realize the public's right to know, reflect the problems in the administration of justice, and supervise the illegal behavior of the judicial organ effectively. At the same time, if the defense lawyer's out of court speech can not be regulated reasonably, it may infringe on the rights and interests of the parties, affect the fair trial, increase the professional risk of lawyer and so on. In recent years, in the judicial practice of our country, the question of defense lawyer's out-of-court speech has brought great challenge to the judicature. In the Li Tianyi case, Beihai case and other cases, the defense lawyer's out-of-court remarks have caused great public opinion influence, and even influenced the trial result. But our country in this aspect has not formed the system, the comprehensive regulation, the legislation aspect also exists certain blank, has not provided a relatively clear behavior guidance to the defense lawyer. Therefore, we need to improve the relevant regulations as soon as possible. The defense lawyer's out-of-court speech regulation has also received the widespread concern of each country. At present, there are two kinds of regulation modes, such as "strict prohibition mode" in Britain and Germany, and "bottom line standard mode" in the United States, which mainly exist in the extraterritorial regulation of defense counsel's out-of-court speech. Through comparative analysis, this paper makes a comparative analysis of the two modes of regulation. The "bottom-line standard model" in the United States sets up a reasonable boundary for lawyers' out-of-court speech, which separates its disadvantages and also ensures the positive role of lawyers' out-of-court speech. Compared with "one size fits all" strict prohibition mode ", it can provide an effective guidance for the determination of Chinese lawyers' out-of-court speech rules. At present, our country is in a relatively special judicial environment and system. We should take into account the specific national conditions and should not copy the provisions of foreign countries. Instead, we should refer to some targeted suggestions on the basis of drawing lessons from the provisions of the "bottom Line Standard Model". In order to improve the standard of defense counsel in the regulation of out-of-court speech, the regulation measures are insufficient, the bar association regulation lags behind, the relief procedure is missing, and the internal problems of lawyers' professional ethics are out of order. Therefore, some suggestions are put forward, including distinguishing the general standard from the exception, perfecting the regulation of the bar association and the regulation of the civil liability, and the pluralistic regulation measures of the regulation of the criminal liability, which are connected with the regulation of the criminal liability. This paper clarifies the status of the relief subject of the judicial administrative organ and draws lessons from the trial mode in the reexamination procedure of the remedy, and strengthens the construction of the lawyer's own professional ethics at the same time.
【学位授予单位】：湘潭大学
【学位级别】：硕士
【学位授予年份】：2017
【分类号】：D926.5

【参考文献】