瑞士废除陪审制与中国人民陪审员制度的持续完善
|
摘要
职权主义国家引入陪审团制度,这似乎是大势所趋。但瑞士反其道而行之。2011年,在瑞士统一的《联邦刑事诉讼法典》颁布后,除提挈诺州外,陪审制在瑞士国境内全面废除,平民参与理念彻底退出瑞士的刑事诉讼。瑞士多数州废除陪审制的核心原因既包括担心由平民组成的陪审团无法有效发现案件真相,又因为《联邦刑事诉讼法典》确立了与陪审制运作机理完全相悖的庭审原则。此外,瑞士高效的刑事案件处理机制也对陪审制的适用形成了强烈的竞争。而提挈诺州则构成"例外中的例外":在保留平民参与司法的同时,构建了与其他主流国家差异颇多的参审制。瑞士的陪审制改革对中国当下人民陪审员制度的完善具有相当的比较法意义:一方面,陪审制改革存在多种选项,因其取决于各国的国情;另一方面,世界各国的陪审制形态呈现多样化,需要中国学术界作更精细化的研究。
It seems the general trend for the civil law countries to introduce the jury system. Switzerland,however, has acted in the opposite way when the system was abolished in all Swiss cantons except Ticino, and the concept of civilian participation was eliminated from Swiss criminal procedure after the promulgation of the Swiss Code of Criminal Procedure in 2011. The abolition resulted primarily from the concerns for the jury's inability to effectively find out the truth of cases and the establishment of the principles of trial under the Swiss Code of Criminal Procedure that totally run contrary to the operating mechanisms of the jury system. Besides, it had been faced with fierce competition with the highly efficient case-handling system. The canton of Ticino, however, has separated itself from other parts of the country by not only retaining the mechanism of civilian participation in the administration of justice, but also establishing the assessor system that is quite different from those in other major countries. The jury reform in Switzerland has considerable comparative significance on the continuous improvement of China's current people's assessor system: on the one hand, there are many options for jury reform and it should be carried out in a specific way depending on the national conditions of the country; on the other hand, more refined researches need to be conducted by the academic community in China on the various forms of the jury system in other countries.
It seems the general trend for the civil law countries to introduce the jury system. Switzerland,however, has acted in the opposite way when the system was abolished in all Swiss cantons except Ticino, and the concept of civilian participation was eliminated from Swiss criminal procedure after the promulgation of the Swiss Code of Criminal Procedure in 2011. The abolition resulted primarily from the concerns for the jury's inability to effectively find out the truth of cases and the establishment of the principles of trial under the Swiss Code of Criminal Procedure that totally run contrary to the operating mechanisms of the jury system. Besides, it had been faced with fierce competition with the highly efficient case-handling system. The canton of Ticino, however, has separated itself from other parts of the country by not only retaining the mechanism of civilian participation in the administration of justice, but also establishing the assessor system that is quite different from those in other major countries. The jury reform in Switzerland has considerable comparative significance on the continuous improvement of China's current people's assessor system: on the one hand, there are many options for jury reform and it should be carried out in a specific way depending on the national conditions of the country; on the other hand, more refined researches need to be conducted by the academic community in China on the various forms of the jury system in other countries.
引文
[1]Stephen C.Thaman.The idea of a Conference on Lay participation[C]//in Le jury dans le procès pénal au XXIe siècle,Conférence internationale,Syracuse,Italie,26-29 mai 1999.
[2]Montesquieu C..De l’esprit des lois(Liv.XI,Chap.IV)[M].Paris:Flammarion,2013.
[3]Traduit par Maurice chevalier.Des délits et des peines[M].Paris:Flammarion,1997:92.
[4]施鹏鹏.陪审制研究[M].北京:中国人民大学出版社,2008.
[5]Carlo Iazeolla.Die Besonderheiten des Tessiner Jury-Systems,Vortrag im Rahmen des Workshops zum Thema 《Laienbeteiligung im Strafprozess》[EB/OL].(2016-02-13)[2018-12-10].https://www.rwi.uzh.ch/dam/jcr:6c7435e3-3cc3-43e7-8c3a-f3f72f42db22/Carlo%20Iazeolla_Die%20Besonderheiten%20des%20Tessiner%20Jury-Systems.pdf.
[6]Francis William O'Brien.Switzerland Questions the Jury[J].32 Sask.L.,1967(31).
[7]蔡墩铭.刑事诉讼法论[M].台北:五南图书公司,2002.
[8]施鹏鹏.审判中心:以人民陪审员制度改革为突破口[J].法律适用,2015(6).
[9]施鹏鹏.人民陪审员制度的改革历程及后续发展[J].中国应用法学,2018(4).
[10]施鹏鹏.二元陪审合议庭的创新与局限[J].人民司法(应用),2018(22).
(1)瑞士是联邦制国家,各州在联邦宪法规定的范围内享有自治权(《瑞士联邦宪法》第3条)。因此,除涉及联邦事务(如军队)外,各州有权拥有自己的宪法、立法机构和司法机构。故享有高度自治权的各州对是否采用陪审制的态度并不必然相同。
(2)例如奥地利(1850)、德意志帝国(1877)、意大利(1888)、比利时(1808)、西班牙(1812)和沙皇俄国(1866)。
(3)Raccolta verbali del Gran Consiglio (RVGC),Runde IV,Do.8.November 1894,S.53 f。
(4)保留监禁(Verwahrung),是指对具有危险的罪犯在执行自由刑以外仍保持一段时间的监禁。保留监禁并非刑罚,目的并非用于惩罚犯罪,而是保护公共安全。
(5)强制医疗(Behandlung),是指对具有严重精神障碍的行为人命令其进行住院治疗。
(6)剥夺自由措施(Freiheitsentzug),指除自由刑以外、包括保留监禁、强制医疗等在内剥夺自由的措施。
[2]Montesquieu C..De l’esprit des lois(Liv.XI,Chap.IV)[M].Paris:Flammarion,2013.
[3]Traduit par Maurice chevalier.Des délits et des peines[M].Paris:Flammarion,1997:92.
[4]施鹏鹏.陪审制研究[M].北京:中国人民大学出版社,2008.
[5]Carlo Iazeolla.Die Besonderheiten des Tessiner Jury-Systems,Vortrag im Rahmen des Workshops zum Thema 《Laienbeteiligung im Strafprozess》[EB/OL].(2016-02-13)[2018-12-10].https://www.rwi.uzh.ch/dam/jcr:6c7435e3-3cc3-43e7-8c3a-f3f72f42db22/Carlo%20Iazeolla_Die%20Besonderheiten%20des%20Tessiner%20Jury-Systems.pdf.
[6]Francis William O'Brien.Switzerland Questions the Jury[J].32 Sask.L.,1967(31).
[7]蔡墩铭.刑事诉讼法论[M].台北:五南图书公司,2002.
[8]施鹏鹏.审判中心:以人民陪审员制度改革为突破口[J].法律适用,2015(6).
[9]施鹏鹏.人民陪审员制度的改革历程及后续发展[J].中国应用法学,2018(4).
[10]施鹏鹏.二元陪审合议庭的创新与局限[J].人民司法(应用),2018(22).
(1)瑞士是联邦制国家,各州在联邦宪法规定的范围内享有自治权(《瑞士联邦宪法》第3条)。因此,除涉及联邦事务(如军队)外,各州有权拥有自己的宪法、立法机构和司法机构。故享有高度自治权的各州对是否采用陪审制的态度并不必然相同。
(2)例如奥地利(1850)、德意志帝国(1877)、意大利(1888)、比利时(1808)、西班牙(1812)和沙皇俄国(1866)。
(3)Raccolta verbali del Gran Consiglio (RVGC),Runde IV,Do.8.November 1894,S.53 f。
(4)保留监禁(Verwahrung),是指对具有危险的罪犯在执行自由刑以外仍保持一段时间的监禁。保留监禁并非刑罚,目的并非用于惩罚犯罪,而是保护公共安全。
(5)强制医疗(Behandlung),是指对具有严重精神障碍的行为人命令其进行住院治疗。
(6)剥夺自由措施(Freiheitsentzug),指除自由刑以外、包括保留监禁、强制医疗等在内剥夺自由的措施。