检察长列席审判委员会制度研究

发布时间：2018-09-04 19:01

【摘要】：检察长列席审判委员会是我国司法体制中的特色制度之一,是当今司法改革的重要内容,是强化审判权力限制,推进司法民主和司法公开性的重大举措。不过司法实践却大相径庭,落实该制度在各种层面上都遇到了较大障碍,导致该制度有被虚置之虞。即便是个别地区一时推行该制度情况较好,但其本意违背了该制度设立初衷。这种巨大反差折射的问题需要深入反思。研究该制度必须回答诸如制度存在必要性、可行性等问题。本文采用历史考察结合实证分析、价值分析的方法对该制度进行了初步探索。全文共分为四个部分,文章第一部分是对检察长列席审判委员会制度的概述分析。本文开篇回归到历史进程中,以夹叙夹议的方式评述了该制度从无到有,从小到大,从混合到独立,从立法到实践,从粗糙到精密的成长过程,发现了检察长列席审判委员会制度与我国政治体制的对立统一及与现代法治理念的兼容性。这种特征给我们具体分析和落实该制度指明了一定方向。其次,本文以重庆市第二中级人民法院及其辖区个别基层法院中关于落实该制度的统计数据为蓝本,从列席案件范围、列席主体、启动程序、发言规则及法律后果等方面分析了该制度的现状,并在此基础上指出该制度在现阶段表现出三大特征,即参与半公开性、参与适度性和事中监督性;也说明了该制度的三大功能,即控诉功能、监督功能和协调功能。本文第二部分着眼于理论纷争和实践困惑,力图正确解读该制度的存在意义和价值。在宏观层面,基于国家秩序需要,我国民主集中制对检察长列席审判委员制度提出了规定性要求,使其既要体现权力集中精神,又要避免沦为绝对权力,达到增强司法公开性和限制司法恣意的目的。在终极价值追求上,检察长列席审判委员会制度可增加审判委员接收的案件信息量,克服不当汇报,间接审判带来的事实认定困难,也可增强法律适用专业性,避免部分审判委员的话语强势,为正确适用法律打下基础。不仅如此,该制度基本上能保证司法理性、法官中立、当事人平等参与、程序公开透明和及时终结,符合正当程序要求。所以,该制度在现实中有存在之必要。第三部分则正视检察长列席审判委员会制度的缺陷,认为现行制度对案件列席范围进行了不当限制,产生了不当导向。不仅如此,列席主体范围认识不一、启动程序难以有效落实、发言规则粗疏、程序后果缺失、辅助机制不明都是该制度非常明显的缺陷。第四部分,理论服务实践,在发现问题的基础上力图使制度有所改善,有针对性的提出解决问题的路径,包括提出建立刑事、民事与行政案件大范围监督机制、确立检察长、副检察长为案件列席主体、修正启动程序、细化分阶段式监督(发言)规则、完善程序后果规定、明确辅助机制等措施。
[Abstract]:The chief procurator sitting on the judicial committee is one of the characteristic systems in the judicial system of our country. It is an important content of the judicial reform nowadays. It is an important measure to strengthen the restriction of judicial power and to promote judicial democracy and judicial openness. However, the judicial practice is quite different, the implementation of the system in various levels encountered great obstacles, resulting in the system is under the threat of virtual. Even if the system is in good condition in individual regions, it is contrary to its original intention. The problem of this great contrast refraction needs deep reflection. The study of the system must answer questions such as the necessity and feasibility of the system. This paper makes a preliminary exploration of this system by means of historical investigation and empirical analysis and value analysis. This paper is divided into four parts. The first part is the summary and analysis of the system of the Procurator-General sitting on the trial Committee. At the beginning of this paper, the author reviews the process of the system from nothing to existence, from small to large, from mix to independence, from legislation to practice, from roughness to precision. The author finds the unity of opposites and the compatibility with the modern concept of rule of law in the system of procuratorial procurator's sitting trial committee and our country's political system. This kind of characteristic gives us the concrete analysis and the implementation this system pointed out the certain direction. Secondly, based on the statistical data on the implementation of the system in Chongqing's second Intermediate people's Court and its individual grass-roots courts in its jurisdiction, this paper starts the procedure from the scope of attending cases, attending the main body, and starting the procedure. On the basis of analyzing the present situation of the system in terms of the rules of speech and the legal consequences, the author points out that the system shows three characteristics at the present stage, that is, participation in semi-openness, participation in moderation and supervision in the event; It also explains the three functions of the system, that is, the function of complaint, the function of supervision and the function of coordination. The second part focuses on theoretical disputes and practical puzzles and tries to correctly interpret the significance and value of the system. At the macro level, on the basis of the needs of the state order, democratic centralism in our country has put forward a prescriptive requirement on the system of procurator's attendance at the judicial committee, so that it should not only embody the spirit of concentration of power, but also avoid being reduced to absolute power. To achieve the purpose of enhancing judicial openness and restricting judicial arbitrariness. In the pursuit of ultimate value, the system of sitting on the trial committee of the chief procurator can increase the amount of case information received by the judicial committee members, overcome the difficulty of finding the facts brought about by improper reporting and indirect trial, and also enhance the professionalism of the application of the law. Avoid the strong words of some judges and lay the foundation for the correct application of the law. Moreover, the system can basically guarantee judicial rationality, the neutrality of judges, the equal participation of the parties, the open and transparent procedure and the timely end, which accords with the requirements of due process. Therefore, the system is necessary to exist in reality. In the third part, we face the defects of the system of procurator's attendance on the trial committee, and think that the present system has improperly restricted the scope of cases' attendance and produced improper guidance. Not only that, the scope of the participants is different, the starting procedure is difficult to carry out effectively, the speaking rules are careless, the procedure consequences are missing, and the auxiliary mechanism is unclear are all the very obvious defects of the system. The fourth part, the theory service practice, tries to improve the system on the basis of finding the problem, and puts forward the way to solve the problem, including the establishment of a large-scale supervision mechanism of criminal, civil and administrative cases, and the establishment of the Attorney-General. The deputy chief procurator is the main body of the case to amend the starting procedure, to refine the rules of stage supervision (speech), to perfect the rules of procedure consequences, and to make clear the auxiliary mechanism and so on.
【学位授予单位】：西南政法大学
【学位级别】：硕士
【学位授予年份】：2011
【分类号】：D926

【参考文献】