發(fā)布時(shí)間：2018-05-15 09:59

  本文選題：選擇性起訴 + 歧視性效果��； 參考：《蘇州大學(xué)》2014年碩士論文

【摘要】：檢察機(jī)關(guān)違反憲法的“平等保護(hù)”原則，基于武斷、任意的分類，在同一類群案件中不公平地選擇部分犯罪嫌疑人的行為就是“選擇性起訴”。選擇性起訴是檢察機(jī)關(guān)濫用公訴裁量權(quán)的表現(xiàn)，違背了公訴是基于公共利益的本質(zhì)要求。它在微觀上會(huì)影響個(gè)案的公正，，在宏觀上則會(huì)嚴(yán)重影響整個(gè)法治社會(huì)的形成與發(fā)展，因此它的危害不容忽視。而且選擇性起訴違反了憲法關(guān)于平等保護(hù)的權(quán)利，侵犯了公民的合法權(quán)利,它并不應(yīng)當(dāng)產(chǎn)生公訴效力。對(duì)于選擇性起訴，以美國、日本為代表的外國建立了選擇性起訴的救濟(jì)制度。美國的選擇性起訴辯護(hù)制度應(yīng)該是發(fā)展得最為完善的，通過YickWo v.Hopkins案等一系列標(biāo)志性案例確立起選擇性起訴辯護(hù)制度后，又確立了既要證明歧視性效果也要證明歧視性意圖的雙重證明標(biāo)準(zhǔn)和嚴(yán)格的證據(jù)開示標(biāo)準(zhǔn)。日本的“公訴權(quán)濫用論”為選擇性起訴辯護(hù)提供了理論支持，也為我國提供了有益的經(jīng)驗(yàn)。通過比較研究，筆者認(rèn)為不管哪個(gè)法系的國家，應(yīng)對(duì)選擇性起訴，都可以采用司法手段進(jìn)行救濟(jì)。由于我國的公訴審查制度本身的漏洞和不足等原因，我國有必要建立選擇性起訴救濟(jì)制度，以抑制這種濫用公訴權(quán)的行為。而我國構(gòu)建選擇性起訴救濟(jì)制度，應(yīng)主要通過完善公訴審查程序、建立公訴審查庭、賦予被告人辯護(hù)權(quán)、舉證責(zé)任倒置等制度設(shè)置來完成。
[Abstract]:The procuratorial organ violates the principle of "equal protection" of the constitution, based on arbitrary and arbitrary classification, the act of unfairly selecting some suspects in the same kind of cases is "selective prosecution". Selective prosecution is the manifestation of procuratorial organ abusing the discretion of public prosecution, which violates the essential requirement of public interest. It will affect the justice of the case at the micro level, and the formation and development of the whole society under the rule of law on the macro level, so its harm can not be ignored. Moreover, selective prosecution violates the constitutional right of equal protection and infringes the legal rights of citizens. For selective prosecution, foreign countries represented by the United States and Japan have established the relief system of selective prosecution. The selective prosecution defense system in the United States should be the most perfect. After the establishment of the selective prosecution defense system through a series of iconic cases such as the YickWo v.Hopkins case, It also establishes the double proof standard and the strict evidence discovery standard that both the discriminatory effect and the discriminatory intention should be proved. The theory of abuse of Public Prosecution in Japan not only provides theoretical support for selective prosecution, but also provides beneficial experience for our country. Through comparative study, the author thinks that no matter which legal system country, should choose the prosecution, can use the judicial means to carry on the relief. Due to the loopholes and deficiencies of the public prosecution review system in our country, it is necessary to establish the selective prosecution remedy system in order to restrain the abuse of the public prosecution right. In order to construct the selective prosecution relief system in our country, it should be completed mainly by perfecting the public prosecution review procedure, establishing the public prosecution review court, endowing the defendant with the right to defend, and putting the burden of proof upside down.
【學(xué)位授予單位】：蘇州大學(xué)
【學(xué)位級(jí)別】：碩士
【學(xué)位授予年份】：2014
【分類號(hào)】：D925.2

【參考文獻(xiàn)】

相關(guān)期刊論文 前10條

1 張旭;李峰;;論刑事訴訟中的“選擇性起訴”[J];法學(xué)評(píng)論;2006年04期

2 謝小劍;;平等保護(hù)與歧視性起訴[J];甘肅政法學(xué)院學(xué)報(bào);2011年02期

3 李長城;丘偉敬;;選擇性起訴與程序?yàn)E用[J];法制與社會(huì);2012年29期

4 趙旭光;李紅楓;;美國選擇性起訴抗辯的證明困境及原因[J];證據(jù)科學(xué);2012年05期

5 謝小劍;;刑事訴訟中的“歧視性起訴”[J];海南大學(xué)學(xué)報(bào)(人文社會(huì)科學(xué)版);2010年03期

6 謝小劍;;公訴裁量權(quán)濫用及其規(guī)制[J];江西社會(huì)科學(xué);2008年11期

7 劉熾;王建榮;;和諧社會(huì)視野下的選擇性起訴研究[J];人民檢察;2008年18期

8 孫長永;抑制公訴權(quán)的東方經(jīng)驗(yàn)——日本“公訴權(quán)濫用論”及其對(duì)判例的影響[J];現(xiàn)代法學(xué);1998年06期

9 謝小劍;;公訴權(quán)濫用形態(tài)的發(fā)展[J];中國刑事法雜志;2009年11期

10 張;潘榮偉;;我國公民社會(huì)權(quán)的缺陷[J];資料通訊;2003年05期

相關(guān)博士學(xué)位論文 前1條

1 劉磊;濫用公訴權(quán)的司法審查機(jī)制研究[D];復(fù)旦大學(xué);2008年

本文編號(hào)：1892001