刑事和解制度研究
|
摘要
刑事和解是指在犯罪发生之后,经由调解人的帮助,使加害人与被害者直接商谈,协商解决纠纷的一种新的刑事冲突处理方式。从20世纪中叶开始到现在,刑事和解已经成为一种世界潮流,它的理念相继被许多国家所接受,并产生了多种实践模式。近年来,我国借鉴西方的经验,逐渐重视被告人合法权益,加强对罪犯的改造,让其重返社会,但对被害人权利的保护还没有引起高度的重视,被害人的权益往往得不到应有的保障,这与和谐社会的要求相差甚远。刑事和解制度的出现,是符合建立和谐社会的基本理念的。在此背景下,本文对刑事和解制度展开研究。第一部分主要介绍刑事和解制度的基本理论。分别介绍了刑事和解制度的概念和特征以及刑事和解制度的产生背景,并对刑事和解的理论渊源进行了详细说明。第二部分从西方刑事和解制度入手,对各国刑事和解制度及其具体模式进行了阐述。在第三部分,通过对刑事和解的必要性和可行性进行了论证分析,从而得出结论,虽然刑事和解制度在我国建立还存在一些障碍,但我国刑事和解制度并不是与中国国情完全脱节的,并从现有的政治基础、文化基础、法律基础以及社会实践基础四个方面来论证了刑事和解在我国建立的可行性。本文第四部分对构造我国刑事和解制度进行了自己的设想,并提出在构建我国现代刑事和解制度后,对我国相关刑事司法制度进行配套改革,以便更好的实现刑事和解的目的。
Victim-offender Reconciliation in the wake of that crime,through the help of the facilitator,so that perpetrators and the victims of direct negotiations, dispute settlement consultations, a new criminal conflict approach. From the middle of the 20th century to the present, Victim-offender Reconciliation has become a trend in the world, the concept of it have been accepted by many countries, and have a wide range of practical model. In recent years, China learn from the experience of the West, the legitimate rights and interests of the defendant to gradually strengthen the rehabilitation of offenders, so reintegration, but also to protecting the rights of the victims did not attract a high degree of attention to the right of victims are often not given due protection, which is a far cry from the requirements of a harmonious society. The emergence of the criminal system of reconciliation, the establishment of a harmonious society is in line with the basic concept. In this context, this paper reconciliation system of criminal conducts studies. First part of main introduction criminal activity reconciliation system’s elementary theory. Introduced separately the criminal reconciliation system’s concept and the characteristic as well as the criminal reconciliation system’s production background, and has carried on the elaboration to various countries’criminal activity reconciliation system and the specific pattern. In the third part, through has carried on the proof analysis to the criminal reconciliation’s necessity and the feasibility, thus draws the conclusion, although the criminal reconciliation system establishes in our country also has some barriers, but our country criminal activity reconciliation system is not comes apart completely with the Chinese national condition, and from the existing political basis, the cultural base, the legal base as well as the social practice foundation four aspects has proven the criminal reconciliation the feasibility which establishes in our country. This article fourth part to constructed our country activity reconciliation system to carry on own tentative plan, and proposed after constructing our country modern criminal activity reconciliation system, carried on the coordinated reforms to our country related criminal justice system, so that better realized the criminal reconciliation goal.
Victim-offender Reconciliation in the wake of that crime,through the help of the facilitator,so that perpetrators and the victims of direct negotiations, dispute settlement consultations, a new criminal conflict approach. From the middle of the 20th century to the present, Victim-offender Reconciliation has become a trend in the world, the concept of it have been accepted by many countries, and have a wide range of practical model. In recent years, China learn from the experience of the West, the legitimate rights and interests of the defendant to gradually strengthen the rehabilitation of offenders, so reintegration, but also to protecting the rights of the victims did not attract a high degree of attention to the right of victims are often not given due protection, which is a far cry from the requirements of a harmonious society. The emergence of the criminal system of reconciliation, the establishment of a harmonious society is in line with the basic concept. In this context, this paper reconciliation system of criminal conducts studies. First part of main introduction criminal activity reconciliation system’s elementary theory. Introduced separately the criminal reconciliation system’s concept and the characteristic as well as the criminal reconciliation system’s production background, and has carried on the elaboration to various countries’criminal activity reconciliation system and the specific pattern. In the third part, through has carried on the proof analysis to the criminal reconciliation’s necessity and the feasibility, thus draws the conclusion, although the criminal reconciliation system establishes in our country also has some barriers, but our country criminal activity reconciliation system is not comes apart completely with the Chinese national condition, and from the existing political basis, the cultural base, the legal base as well as the social practice foundation four aspects has proven the criminal reconciliation the feasibility which establishes in our country. This article fourth part to constructed our country activity reconciliation system to carry on own tentative plan, and proposed after constructing our country modern criminal activity reconciliation system, carried on the coordinated reforms to our country related criminal justice system, so that better realized the criminal reconciliation goal.
引文
[1] 何军恒.‘轻伤’刑事政策及其在检察工作中的应用[J]. 中国检察, 2007,12: 59.
[2] 栗详武. 我国构建刑事和解制度的历史文化基础[J]. 湖南农机, 2007, 5:69-70.
[3] 马静华. 刑事和解的理论基础及其在我国的制度构想[J].法律科学,2003,4:17.
[4] 龚佳禾.刑事和解制度研究[M].北京:中国检察出版社,2007: 19-20.
[5] 陈光中,葛琳.刑事和解初探[J].中国法学,2006,5:4—5.
[6] Gorden Bazemore and Mark Umbreit, A Comparison of four Restoritive Conferencing Models[J]. U.S.Department of Justice.in Juvenile Justice Bullet 2001(2).
[7] 陈玉范,屈光臣.“私了”问题的法律思考[J].当代法学,1995,1:27-28.
[8] 张容,卫华.不能忽视农村犯罪私了现象[N].法制日报,2001,3(9):7.
[9] 刘涛.刑事诉讼主体论[M].北京:中国人民公安大学出版社,2005:274-275.
[10] (日)田口守一.刘迪译.刑事诉讼法[M].北京:法律出版社,2000:38.
[11] Gehm,John R ,Victim-Offender Mediation Program:An Exploration of Practice and Theoretical Frameworks[J]. Western Criminology 1998(1).
[12] 刘方权,陈晓石.西方刑事和解理论基础介评[J].云南大学学报(法学版),2003,1: 12.
[13] 孟志伟.传统文化与刑事和解制度[A].见龚佳禾.刑事和解制度研究[M].北京:中国检察出版社,2007: 77.
[14] 王运生,严军兴.英国刑事司法与替刑制度[M].北京:中国法制出版社,1999:139-150.
[15] 中国政法大学刑事法律研究中心.英国刑事诉讼法(选编)[M].北京:中国政法大学出版社,2001:546.
[16] Detlev Frehsee, Restitution and Offender-Victim Arrangement in German Criminal Law : Development and Theoretical Implications[S] .Buffalo Criminal Law Review Vol3:235
[17] [法]卡斯东.斯特法尼.罗结珍译.法国刑事诉讼法精义[M].北京:中国政法大学出版社,1999:504.
[18] 刘拥,李迅华.法国刑事和解制度及其借鉴[A].见龚家禾.刑事和解制度研究[M].北京:中国检察出版社,2007:264.
[19] 马静华.刑事和解论纲(上)[J].:http://www.cnoff.com/Table/Legalpaper/2006-5/12/2006051221445615.shtml,2006-05-12.
[20] 马静华,罗宁.西方刑事和解制度考略[J].福建公安高等专科学校学报,2006,1:70.
[21] 刘凌梅.西方国家刑事和解理论与实践介评[J].现代法学,2001,1:14.
[22] 张庆方.恢复性司法——一种全新的形式法治模式[A].见陈兴良.刑事法评论(第12 卷),北京:中国政法大学出版社,2003:464.
[23] 吴宗宪.非监禁刑研究[M].北京:中国人民公安大学出版社,2003:223-224.
[24] 周世雄.刑事和解制度研究——以湖南省检察机关刑事和解机制为样本分析[A].见龚佳禾.刑事和解制度研究[M].北京:中国检察出版社,2007:13.
[25] 陈卫东.不起诉制度[N].检察日报, 2003,1(16):6.
[26] 唐峰.公诉程序中的刑事和解研究——以轻伤害案件为着力点[N].http://www.sinolaw.net.cn./news.yezpzx/20048282414.htm,2004-08-28.
[27] 吴明星.刑事和解制度研究[D].山东:山东大学,2007:27-28.
[28] 刘湘滨.刑事和解制度的倡导和推行[A].见龚佳禾.刑事和解制度研究[M].北京:中国检察出版社,2007:179.
[29] 吴宗宪,陈志海,叶旦声、马晓东.非监禁刑研究[M].北京:中国人民公安大学出版社,2003:178.
[30] 高建明.刑事和解制度研究[D].山东:山东大学,2007:30-31.
[31] 李茂春.刑事和解制度研究[D].山西:山西大学,2006: 24-25.
[32] 李邦友,姚斌.轻罪和解模式研究[A].见:和谐社会语境下的刑事和解学术研讨会文集[C].北京:中国人民大学刑事法律科学研究中心、北京市检察官协会编印,2006(7): 24.
[33] 黄惊平等.刑事和解的司法现状与前景——来自北京市海淀区人民检察院的实践报告[A].见:和谐社会语境下的刑事和解学术研讨会文集[C].北京:中国人民大学刑事法律科学研究中心、北京市检察官协会编印,2006(7):49-50.
[34] 朱道华.论轻伤害案件的处理机制构建[J].公安学刊,2006,1:48.
[35] 李茂春.刑事和解制度研究[D].山西:山西大学,2006:28.
[36] 樊崇义,夏红.联合国刑事司法准则与中国刑事诉讼法的再修改[J].人民检察,2007,11:48.
[2] 栗详武. 我国构建刑事和解制度的历史文化基础[J]. 湖南农机, 2007, 5:69-70.
[3] 马静华. 刑事和解的理论基础及其在我国的制度构想[J].法律科学,2003,4:17.
[4] 龚佳禾.刑事和解制度研究[M].北京:中国检察出版社,2007: 19-20.
[5] 陈光中,葛琳.刑事和解初探[J].中国法学,2006,5:4—5.
[6] Gorden Bazemore and Mark Umbreit, A Comparison of four Restoritive Conferencing Models[J]. U.S.Department of Justice.in Juvenile Justice Bullet 2001(2).
[7] 陈玉范,屈光臣.“私了”问题的法律思考[J].当代法学,1995,1:27-28.
[8] 张容,卫华.不能忽视农村犯罪私了现象[N].法制日报,2001,3(9):7.
[9] 刘涛.刑事诉讼主体论[M].北京:中国人民公安大学出版社,2005:274-275.
[10] (日)田口守一.刘迪译.刑事诉讼法[M].北京:法律出版社,2000:38.
[11] Gehm,John R ,Victim-Offender Mediation Program:An Exploration of Practice and Theoretical Frameworks[J]. Western Criminology 1998(1).
[12] 刘方权,陈晓石.西方刑事和解理论基础介评[J].云南大学学报(法学版),2003,1: 12.
[13] 孟志伟.传统文化与刑事和解制度[A].见龚佳禾.刑事和解制度研究[M].北京:中国检察出版社,2007: 77.
[14] 王运生,严军兴.英国刑事司法与替刑制度[M].北京:中国法制出版社,1999:139-150.
[15] 中国政法大学刑事法律研究中心.英国刑事诉讼法(选编)[M].北京:中国政法大学出版社,2001:546.
[16] Detlev Frehsee, Restitution and Offender-Victim Arrangement in German Criminal Law : Development and Theoretical Implications[S] .Buffalo Criminal Law Review Vol3:235
[17] [法]卡斯东.斯特法尼.罗结珍译.法国刑事诉讼法精义[M].北京:中国政法大学出版社,1999:504.
[18] 刘拥,李迅华.法国刑事和解制度及其借鉴[A].见龚家禾.刑事和解制度研究[M].北京:中国检察出版社,2007:264.
[19] 马静华.刑事和解论纲(上)[J].:http://www.cnoff.com/Table/Legalpaper/2006-5/12/2006051221445615.shtml,2006-05-12.
[20] 马静华,罗宁.西方刑事和解制度考略[J].福建公安高等专科学校学报,2006,1:70.
[21] 刘凌梅.西方国家刑事和解理论与实践介评[J].现代法学,2001,1:14.
[22] 张庆方.恢复性司法——一种全新的形式法治模式[A].见陈兴良.刑事法评论(第12 卷),北京:中国政法大学出版社,2003:464.
[23] 吴宗宪.非监禁刑研究[M].北京:中国人民公安大学出版社,2003:223-224.
[24] 周世雄.刑事和解制度研究——以湖南省检察机关刑事和解机制为样本分析[A].见龚佳禾.刑事和解制度研究[M].北京:中国检察出版社,2007:13.
[25] 陈卫东.不起诉制度[N].检察日报, 2003,1(16):6.
[26] 唐峰.公诉程序中的刑事和解研究——以轻伤害案件为着力点[N].http://www.sinolaw.net.cn./news.yezpzx/20048282414.htm,2004-08-28.
[27] 吴明星.刑事和解制度研究[D].山东:山东大学,2007:27-28.
[28] 刘湘滨.刑事和解制度的倡导和推行[A].见龚佳禾.刑事和解制度研究[M].北京:中国检察出版社,2007:179.
[29] 吴宗宪,陈志海,叶旦声、马晓东.非监禁刑研究[M].北京:中国人民公安大学出版社,2003:178.
[30] 高建明.刑事和解制度研究[D].山东:山东大学,2007:30-31.
[31] 李茂春.刑事和解制度研究[D].山西:山西大学,2006: 24-25.
[32] 李邦友,姚斌.轻罪和解模式研究[A].见:和谐社会语境下的刑事和解学术研讨会文集[C].北京:中国人民大学刑事法律科学研究中心、北京市检察官协会编印,2006(7): 24.
[33] 黄惊平等.刑事和解的司法现状与前景——来自北京市海淀区人民检察院的实践报告[A].见:和谐社会语境下的刑事和解学术研讨会文集[C].北京:中国人民大学刑事法律科学研究中心、北京市检察官协会编印,2006(7):49-50.
[34] 朱道华.论轻伤害案件的处理机制构建[J].公安学刊,2006,1:48.
[35] 李茂春.刑事和解制度研究[D].山西:山西大学,2006:28.
[36] 樊崇义,夏红.联合国刑事司法准则与中国刑事诉讼法的再修改[J].人民检察,2007,11:48.