刑事速裁程序一审终审的探讨
|
摘要
刑事速裁程序突显了司法公正基础上的诉讼效率追求,是应对司法资源有限性和公众司法需求高效之矛盾的应然选择。刑事速裁程序与审级制度存在公正与效率的价值耦合,为了实现刑事速裁程序之诉讼效率的最大化,应当建立与该审判程序相协调的一审终审之审级制度。在此基础上,应配套规定当事人诉讼权利充分行使、刑事速裁程序适时转为普通程序等保障性措施。
The criminal prosecution procedure highlights the pursuit of litigation efficiency on the basis of judicial justice, which is a suitable choice for dealing with the contradiction between the limitation of judicial resources and the high efficiency of public justice. Criminal rapid trial procedure and trial system have coincidences in terms of both justice and efficiency. In order to maximize the litigation efficiency of the criminal prosecution procedure, the first-instance final review system should be established in coordination with the trial procedure. On the basis of the trial of the first-instance final trial, it should provide supporting measures such as the full exercise of the litigant rights of the parties and the timely conversion of the criminal prosecution procedure into ordinary procedures, so as to maximize the litigation efficiency of the criminal prosecution procedure on the basis of justice.
The criminal prosecution procedure highlights the pursuit of litigation efficiency on the basis of judicial justice, which is a suitable choice for dealing with the contradiction between the limitation of judicial resources and the high efficiency of public justice. Criminal rapid trial procedure and trial system have coincidences in terms of both justice and efficiency. In order to maximize the litigation efficiency of the criminal prosecution procedure, the first-instance final review system should be established in coordination with the trial procedure. On the basis of the trial of the first-instance final trial, it should provide supporting measures such as the full exercise of the litigant rights of the parties and the timely conversion of the criminal prosecution procedure into ordinary procedures, so as to maximize the litigation efficiency of the criminal prosecution procedure on the basis of justice.
引文
[1] 李本森.刑事速裁程序试点研究报告:基于18个试点城市的调查问卷分析[J].法学家,2018(1):170-183.
[2] 谭世贵.中国司法制度[M].北京:法律出版社,2005:51.
[3] 姚莉.司法效率:理论分析与制度构建[J].法商研究,2006(3):95-96.
[4] 龙宗智,杨建广.刑事诉讼法[M].北京:高等教育出版社,2006:114.
[5] 张文显.联动司法:诉讼社会境况下的司法模式[J].法律适用,2011(1):2-6.
[6] 陈卫东.刑事诉讼法学[M].北京:中国人民大学出版社,2012:264.
[7] 龙宗智.论建立以一审庭审为中心的事实认定机制[J].中国法学,2010(2):143-157.
[8] 熊秋红.“两种刑事诉讼程序”中的有效辩护[J].法律适用,2018(3):56-62.
[9] 张宝.刑事速裁程序的反思与完善[J].法学杂志,2018(4):115-121.
(1)非诉讼纠纷解决程序即“ADR”程序主要指诉讼以外的解决纠纷的程序机制,包括和解、调解和仲裁等。该程序主要适用于解决民事纠纷。对于刑事犯罪案件,除了自诉案件和极少数的公诉案件可以和解、调解外,非诉讼纠纷解决程序难以发挥作用。这既有犯罪实行国家治罪理念限制,同时也缺乏立法上的规定。
[2] 谭世贵.中国司法制度[M].北京:法律出版社,2005:51.
[3] 姚莉.司法效率:理论分析与制度构建[J].法商研究,2006(3):95-96.
[4] 龙宗智,杨建广.刑事诉讼法[M].北京:高等教育出版社,2006:114.
[5] 张文显.联动司法:诉讼社会境况下的司法模式[J].法律适用,2011(1):2-6.
[6] 陈卫东.刑事诉讼法学[M].北京:中国人民大学出版社,2012:264.
[7] 龙宗智.论建立以一审庭审为中心的事实认定机制[J].中国法学,2010(2):143-157.
[8] 熊秋红.“两种刑事诉讼程序”中的有效辩护[J].法律适用,2018(3):56-62.
[9] 张宝.刑事速裁程序的反思与完善[J].法学杂志,2018(4):115-121.
(1)非诉讼纠纷解决程序即“ADR”程序主要指诉讼以外的解决纠纷的程序机制,包括和解、调解和仲裁等。该程序主要适用于解决民事纠纷。对于刑事犯罪案件,除了自诉案件和极少数的公诉案件可以和解、调解外,非诉讼纠纷解决程序难以发挥作用。这既有犯罪实行国家治罪理念限制,同时也缺乏立法上的规定。