死刑复核程序的诉讼化建构
|
摘要
死刑是我国刑罚中最严厉的一种,它的适用会导致人的生命权的丧失,所以,一个人一旦被判处死刑,并最终执行了死刑,将会产生无法弥补的后果。由于死刑的这一特征,世界上很多国家都已经废除了死刑。但是针对我国的情况而言,要想在较短时间内让死刑这一制度彻底消灭是不大可能的,所以至今为止,我国还是保留了对死刑的适用。但是,我国虽然保留了对死刑的适用,却对死刑的适用做出了极为严格的限制。一方面适用死刑来打击犯罪、保障多数人的人权,另一方面在适用过程中又采取了非常谨慎的态度,从实体和程序两方面上严格限制死刑的适用,以防止因过于宽松而滥杀无辜,形成冤假错案。2007年1月1日起,我国死刑核准权正式收归最高人民法院,这一事件对我国的死刑复核程序产生了很大的影响,具有重要的历史意义。
死刑复核程序是我国刑事诉讼中的一个特殊程序,也是具有中国特色的一个程序。这个程序对于严格限制我国死刑的适用,贯彻我国少杀、慎杀的刑事政策,防止冤假错案的产生以及保障死刑被告人的权利都具有一定的作用。然而,由于制度上设计的考虑不周,我国现行的死刑复核程序存在着严重的“行政化”倾向,在具体应用中不能很好地发挥其应有的作用,而且它还与程序正义的基本要求背道而驰,不能很好地保障被告人的相关权利。当然,一种制度存在问题是由多种因素造成的。那么现行的死刑复核程序存在“行政化”倾向的原因也是多种多样,形形色色。概括起来主要有以下几个方面：我国古代死刑复核制度的相关规定对现行的死刑复核制度会产生不可避免的深刻影响,因为法律往往都具有一定的承袭性；另外,我国从有法律开始,就具有“重实体、轻程序”、“效率优先于公平”的思想传统,这也在现行的法律制度上烙上了很深的印记。如今,我国的社会主义民主与法制建设取得了很大的进步,与死刑相关的其他一些制度也得到了逐步改善,这些情况使得完善现行的死刑复核程序具备了一种可能性。另外,当今社会的一些诉讼理念,例如程序正义、公正与效率等也要求对我国的死刑复核程序进行诉讼化的构建；而国际上通行的严格限制死刑适用的原则以及我国“少杀、慎杀”的死刑政策等也为我国死刑复核程序的完善提供了原则和依据。因此,我认为死刑复核程序作为一种审判程序,就理应按照诉讼的基本规律和要求,以诉讼的形式加以构建。死刑复核程序的诉讼化构建应当坚持实体与程序并重,确保诉讼的公正,死刑复核的主体应保持中立性和特定性,应贯彻全面开庭审理的原则,应明确检察机关在诉讼中的地位并加强其对死刑复核程序的法律监督作用,还应明确死刑复核程序的具体审理期限等。总之,我们要想尽各种方法来改正现行死刑复核程序存在的种种问题,使这一程序更加完善。只有这样才能充分发挥死刑复核程序的各种有利作用,才能对促进我国的法治建设作出更多的贡献,才能使死刑复核程序限制死刑适用、保障被告人人权的目的最终得以实现。
Capital punishment is the most severe of a penalty, its application would result in the loss of people's right to life, so once a person has been sentenced to death, and ultimately executed, will result in irreparable consequences. Because of the characteristics of the death penalty, many countries in the world have already abolished the death penalty. But the case against our country, in order to allow the death penalty wipe out in a relatively short period of time is unlikely, so far, China still retains the death penalty. However, even though China retains the death penalty, then made the application of the death penalty is extremely strict restrictions. On one hand for the death penalty to combat crime and protect the human rights of the majority, on the other hand in the application process has taken a very cautious approach, both from the substantive and procedural restrictions on the strict application of the death penalty in order to prevent too loose and killing innocent, the formation of the wrong case. On January 1,2007, the power of Death Penalty review reverted to the Supreme Court officially, the incident of the death penalty review procedures in China had a great impact, has important historical significance.
Death Penalty in China's Criminal Procedure is a special program,and is also a program with Chinese characteristics. Strictly limited for this program of the death penalty, implementation of fewer to kill, be careful to execute the criminal policy, to prevent miscarriages of justice and the protection of the rights of the accused to death has a certain role. However, the institutional design of ill-considered, China's current death penalty review procedure there is a serious "administrative" tendency, in the specific application cannot properly play its due role, and it also contradict to the basic procedural justice, do not protect the relevant rights of the defendant's. Of course, the problem in a system is caused by various factors. Then the reason of the current death penalty review procedure's " administrative " tendency is also various. Summed up in the following areas:Ancient Death Penalty System of the relevant provisions of the existing death penalty review system will have a profound impact on the inevitable, because the law often has some inherited resistance; In addition, there are laws in China from the beginning, with a "value entity, light program," "efficiency first in the fair," the intellectual tradition, which is also branded on the existing legal system to a deep imprint. Today, China's socialist democracy and legal construction has made great progress, and the death penalty related to a number of other systems have also been gradually improved, these circumstances make it perfect with the current death penalty review process a possibility. In addition, the concept of some litigation in today's society, such as procedural justice, fairness and efficiency, also called for the building of the proceedings of death penalty review; and strict restrictions on internationally accepted principles and of the death penalty applies to "kill fewer, kill carefully ",the death penalty policy for the improvement of the death penalty review procedure provides principles and basis. Therefore, I think death penalty review process as a trial program to the proceedings should be in accordance with the basic rules and requirements to be constructed in the form of litigation. The litigation of death penalty review process should adhere to building both physical and procedures to ensure fair proceedings, the death penalty should remain neutral review of the main and specific and should implement the principle of a full trial, the prosecution should be a clear position in the proceedings and to strengthen Death Penalty its supervisory role of the law, death penalty review procedure should also be clear its deadlines for the specific trial. In short, we should try every means to correct the problems that exist in the current death penalty review process, making the procedure more perfect. It is the only way to give full play to the death penalty review process a variety of beneficial effects, in order to promote the rule of law in China to contribute more to the death penalty review procedure,then the ultimate purpose of limitting the death penalty applies, protecting human rights of the accused can be achieved.
死刑复核程序是我国刑事诉讼中的一个特殊程序,也是具有中国特色的一个程序。这个程序对于严格限制我国死刑的适用,贯彻我国少杀、慎杀的刑事政策,防止冤假错案的产生以及保障死刑被告人的权利都具有一定的作用。然而,由于制度上设计的考虑不周,我国现行的死刑复核程序存在着严重的“行政化”倾向,在具体应用中不能很好地发挥其应有的作用,而且它还与程序正义的基本要求背道而驰,不能很好地保障被告人的相关权利。当然,一种制度存在问题是由多种因素造成的。那么现行的死刑复核程序存在“行政化”倾向的原因也是多种多样,形形色色。概括起来主要有以下几个方面：我国古代死刑复核制度的相关规定对现行的死刑复核制度会产生不可避免的深刻影响,因为法律往往都具有一定的承袭性；另外,我国从有法律开始,就具有“重实体、轻程序”、“效率优先于公平”的思想传统,这也在现行的法律制度上烙上了很深的印记。如今,我国的社会主义民主与法制建设取得了很大的进步,与死刑相关的其他一些制度也得到了逐步改善,这些情况使得完善现行的死刑复核程序具备了一种可能性。另外,当今社会的一些诉讼理念,例如程序正义、公正与效率等也要求对我国的死刑复核程序进行诉讼化的构建；而国际上通行的严格限制死刑适用的原则以及我国“少杀、慎杀”的死刑政策等也为我国死刑复核程序的完善提供了原则和依据。因此,我认为死刑复核程序作为一种审判程序,就理应按照诉讼的基本规律和要求,以诉讼的形式加以构建。死刑复核程序的诉讼化构建应当坚持实体与程序并重,确保诉讼的公正,死刑复核的主体应保持中立性和特定性,应贯彻全面开庭审理的原则,应明确检察机关在诉讼中的地位并加强其对死刑复核程序的法律监督作用,还应明确死刑复核程序的具体审理期限等。总之,我们要想尽各种方法来改正现行死刑复核程序存在的种种问题,使这一程序更加完善。只有这样才能充分发挥死刑复核程序的各种有利作用,才能对促进我国的法治建设作出更多的贡献,才能使死刑复核程序限制死刑适用、保障被告人人权的目的最终得以实现。
Capital punishment is the most severe of a penalty, its application would result in the loss of people's right to life, so once a person has been sentenced to death, and ultimately executed, will result in irreparable consequences. Because of the characteristics of the death penalty, many countries in the world have already abolished the death penalty. But the case against our country, in order to allow the death penalty wipe out in a relatively short period of time is unlikely, so far, China still retains the death penalty. However, even though China retains the death penalty, then made the application of the death penalty is extremely strict restrictions. On one hand for the death penalty to combat crime and protect the human rights of the majority, on the other hand in the application process has taken a very cautious approach, both from the substantive and procedural restrictions on the strict application of the death penalty in order to prevent too loose and killing innocent, the formation of the wrong case. On January 1,2007, the power of Death Penalty review reverted to the Supreme Court officially, the incident of the death penalty review procedures in China had a great impact, has important historical significance.
Death Penalty in China's Criminal Procedure is a special program,and is also a program with Chinese characteristics. Strictly limited for this program of the death penalty, implementation of fewer to kill, be careful to execute the criminal policy, to prevent miscarriages of justice and the protection of the rights of the accused to death has a certain role. However, the institutional design of ill-considered, China's current death penalty review procedure there is a serious "administrative" tendency, in the specific application cannot properly play its due role, and it also contradict to the basic procedural justice, do not protect the relevant rights of the defendant's. Of course, the problem in a system is caused by various factors. Then the reason of the current death penalty review procedure's " administrative " tendency is also various. Summed up in the following areas:Ancient Death Penalty System of the relevant provisions of the existing death penalty review system will have a profound impact on the inevitable, because the law often has some inherited resistance; In addition, there are laws in China from the beginning, with a "value entity, light program," "efficiency first in the fair," the intellectual tradition, which is also branded on the existing legal system to a deep imprint. Today, China's socialist democracy and legal construction has made great progress, and the death penalty related to a number of other systems have also been gradually improved, these circumstances make it perfect with the current death penalty review process a possibility. In addition, the concept of some litigation in today's society, such as procedural justice, fairness and efficiency, also called for the building of the proceedings of death penalty review; and strict restrictions on internationally accepted principles and of the death penalty applies to "kill fewer, kill carefully ",the death penalty policy for the improvement of the death penalty review procedure provides principles and basis. Therefore, I think death penalty review process as a trial program to the proceedings should be in accordance with the basic rules and requirements to be constructed in the form of litigation. The litigation of death penalty review process should adhere to building both physical and procedures to ensure fair proceedings, the death penalty should remain neutral review of the main and specific and should implement the principle of a full trial, the prosecution should be a clear position in the proceedings and to strengthen Death Penalty its supervisory role of the law, death penalty review procedure should also be clear its deadlines for the specific trial. In short, we should try every means to correct the problems that exist in the current death penalty review process, making the procedure more perfect. It is the only way to give full play to the death penalty review process a variety of beneficial effects, in order to promote the rule of law in China to contribute more to the death penalty review procedure,then the ultimate purpose of limitting the death penalty applies, protecting human rights of the accused can be achieved.
引文
[1]赵秉志、肖中华.死刑的限制与扩张之争[J].法学,1998(10).
[2]李义冠.美国刑事审判制度[M].法律出版社,1999.144.
[3]宋英辉译.日本刑事诉讼法典[M].中国政法大学出版社,2000.82
[4]陈奎.论我国死刑复核程序的构造缺陷及矫正[J].法制与经济,2008.
[5]徐静村.刑事诉讼法学[M].北京：法律出版社,2004.66-68.
[6]陈瑞华.刑事审判原理论(第2版)[M].北京：北京大学出版社,2003.22-27
[7]甄贞.刑事诉讼法学研究综述[M].北京：法律出版社,2002.519-532.
[8]陈卫东.关于完善死刑复核程序的几点意见[J].环球法律评论,2006.
[9]贝卡利亚.论犯罪与刑罚(.黄风译)[M].北京：大百科全书出版社,1993.256.
[10]肖松平、叶仲耀.司法权的行政化—对死刑复核程序的审视[J].当代法学,2001(10)：36
[11]龙宗智、杨建广.刑事诉讼法(第1版)[M].北京：高等教育出版社,2003.6-9.
[12]刘金林.海峡两岸死刑制度之比较研究[J].法学评论,1999(6)
[13]李义冠.美国刑事审判制度[M].法律出版社,1999.144
[14]外国刑事诉讼法学参考资料[M].北京大学出版社,1995.265.
[15]杨成铭著.人权法学[M].方正出版社,2004.405.
[2]李义冠.美国刑事审判制度[M].法律出版社,1999.144.
[3]宋英辉译.日本刑事诉讼法典[M].中国政法大学出版社,2000.82
[4]陈奎.论我国死刑复核程序的构造缺陷及矫正[J].法制与经济,2008.
[5]徐静村.刑事诉讼法学[M].北京：法律出版社,2004.66-68.
[6]陈瑞华.刑事审判原理论(第2版)[M].北京：北京大学出版社,2003.22-27
[7]甄贞.刑事诉讼法学研究综述[M].北京：法律出版社,2002.519-532.
[8]陈卫东.关于完善死刑复核程序的几点意见[J].环球法律评论,2006.
[9]贝卡利亚.论犯罪与刑罚(.黄风译)[M].北京：大百科全书出版社,1993.256.
[10]肖松平、叶仲耀.司法权的行政化—对死刑复核程序的审视[J].当代法学,2001(10)：36
[11]龙宗智、杨建广.刑事诉讼法(第1版)[M].北京：高等教育出版社,2003.6-9.
[12]刘金林.海峡两岸死刑制度之比较研究[J].法学评论,1999(6)
[13]李义冠.美国刑事审判制度[M].法律出版社,1999.144
[14]外国刑事诉讼法学参考资料[M].北京大学出版社,1995.265.
[15]杨成铭著.人权法学[M].方正出版社,2004.405.