我国公诉案件被害人权益保障对策研究

发布时间：2018-05-22 09:09

本文选题：公诉案件被害人 + 权益保障　；参考：《甘肃政法学院》2011年硕士论文

【摘要】：我国1996年《刑事诉讼法》的修改确立了被害人的当事人地位,在立法中极大增强了对被害人的保护,但在公诉案件被害人的保护和救济的问题上仍然与国外的发展状况有较大的差距,在实践中还存在着诸多问题亟待解决。由于对公诉案件被害人的赔偿和社会保护制度的建立受很多因素的制约,这使得对公诉案件被害人问题的关注,自然向刑事诉讼中转移。而在我国,被害人在刑事诉讼中的诉讼地位比较高,但由于理论研究滞后,立法技术及我国实际情况的限制,法律规定还存在颇多缺憾,实践中的被害人告状难、司法参与难等问题并没有得到实际解决。因此,本文通过比较研究将主要从程序和实体两个方面对公诉案件被害人的权益保障着手进行探讨,希望通过研究以及借鉴国外有价值的经验,从而达到提高和完善我国公诉案件被害人保护之目的。本文共分四个部分。第一部分：作为行文的基石,笔者首先从被害人的含义和特征两方面对有关公诉案件被害人的基本问题进行了阐述,接着从程序正义、实体正义、人权保障、平衡诉讼利益及和谐社会五个方面进而论证了应对公诉案件被害人权益进行保障的理论基础。第二部分：通过对当事人主义国家的典型代表英国和美国两个国家,职权主义国家的典型代表德国和法国两个国家对公诉案件被害人权益保障具体做法的介绍,从而揭示了国外公诉案件中被害人权益保障状况及成功经验。第三部分：从刑事程序中救济的不足和实体性救济制度的缺失两个方面入手分析了现阶段我国公诉案件被害人保护和救济的不足之处,其中程序救济的不足包括：一、刑事被害人对侦查机关不立案决定缺乏有效的法律救济；二、刑事被害人参与审查起诉程序的不足及其代理律师权利受到限制；三、刑事被害人起诉权的不完善；四、我国现行刑事和解政策实践上的不足；五、庭审中刑事被害人在量刑阶段中的作用被忽视；六、未赋予刑事被害人上诉权；七、二审及死刑复核程序对刑事被害人的忽视；八、刑事被害人被排除在执行程序之外。实体性救济制度的缺失包括：一、刑事被害人经济求偿权的有限；二、国家补偿责任的缺失；三、缺少对刑事被害人的援助制度。在分析了我国公诉案件被害人保护不足之处后,笔者进一步揭示了造成现状的原因所在。第四部分：在分析和借鉴国外成功经验和有关学者的研究成果的基础上,以陈瑞华教授提出的在刑事诉讼中吸收被害人的参与的“四方诉讼构造”模式为出发点,针对第三部分中程序和实体部分的不足之处,通过对审前程序、庭审过程中、刑罚执行阶段、国家补偿、社会援助等程序和实体的多个方面的建立及完善来达到笔者试图对公诉案件被害人的权益进行保护之目的。
[Abstract]:The amendment of our country's Criminal procedure Law in 1996 established the status of the victim as a party, and greatly enhanced the protection of the victim in the legislation. However, there is still a big gap between the protection and relief of victims in public prosecution cases and the development of foreign countries, and there are still many problems to be solved in practice. Because the compensation of the victims of public prosecution cases and the establishment of social protection system are restricted by many factors, the attention to the victims of public prosecution cases is naturally transferred to the criminal proceedings. But in our country, the victim has a higher status in the criminal procedure, but because of the lag of the theory research, the limitation of the legislative technology and the actual situation of our country, there are still many defects in the legal provisions, and the victims' complaint in practice is difficult. Problems such as the difficulty of judicial participation have not been solved in practice. Therefore, through the comparative study, this paper will mainly discuss the protection of the rights and interests of the victims of public prosecution cases from the two aspects of procedure and entity, hoping to learn from the valuable experience of foreign countries through the study. In order to improve and improve the protection of victims of public prosecution cases in China. This paper is divided into four parts. The first part: as the cornerstone of the text, the author first expounds the basic problems of the victim of the public prosecution case from the meaning and characteristics of the victim, and then from the procedural justice, substantive justice, human rights protection, The theoretical basis of protecting the rights and interests of the victims in public prosecution cases is demonstrated from five aspects of balancing the interests of litigation and harmonious society. The second part: through the introduction of the specific methods of protecting the rights and interests of the victims of public prosecution cases by two typical countries, Britain and the United States, and Germany and France, which are the typical representatives of the country of litigant doctrine. Thus it reveals the situation and successful experience of protecting the rights and interests of victims in foreign public prosecution cases. The third part analyzes the deficiency of victim protection and relief in public prosecution cases in our country from two aspects: the deficiency of relief in criminal procedure and the deficiency of substantial relief system. Among them, the deficiency of procedural relief includes: 1. The criminal victim lacks effective legal remedy for the decision not to place a case on file by the investigating organ; second, the insufficiency of the criminal victim's participation in the examination and prosecution procedure and the restriction of his lawyer's right to represent him; third, the imperfection of the criminal victim's right to sue; fourthly, Deficiencies in the practice of the current criminal reconciliation policy in China; fifthly, the role of criminal victims in the sentencing phase is ignored in court; sixth, criminal victims are not given the right of appeal; seventh, the second instance and the death penalty review procedure neglect the criminal victims; and eighth, The criminal victim was excluded from the execution procedure. The lack of substantial relief system includes: first, the limited economic claims of criminal victims; second, the lack of national compensation responsibility; third, the lack of assistance system for criminal victims. After analyzing the shortcomings of victim protection in public prosecution cases in China, the author further reveals the causes of the present situation. The fourth part: on the basis of analyzing and drawing lessons from the successful experiences of foreign countries and the research results of relevant scholars, taking the model of "Quadripartite Litigation", which is put forward by Professor Chen Ruihua, which involves the participation of victims in criminal proceedings, as the starting point, In view of the deficiency of the procedure and entity part in the third part, through the pretrial procedure, the trial process, the penalty execution stage, the state compensation, Social assistance and other procedures and entities of the establishment and improvement of various aspects to achieve the purpose of the protection of the interests of the victims of public prosecution cases.
【学位授予单位】：甘肃政法学院
【学位级别】：硕士
【学位授予年份】：2011
【分类号】：D926.3;D925.2

【参考文献】