發(fā)布時(shí)間：2018-05-17 18:09

  本文選題：非羈押訴訟 + 人權(quán)�。� 參考：《暨南大學(xué)》2014年碩士論文

【摘要】：在2013年1月1日正式頒布實(shí)施的新《刑事訴訟法》中,我國首次將“保障人權(quán)”寫入法條,“懲罰犯罪與保障人權(quán)并重”成為新法的精神主旨。在此背景下,非羈押訴訟成為我國刑事訴訟改革的必然趨勢。目前,“刑事和解制度”、“未成年人特別程序”已對以往“構(gòu)罪即拘”、“構(gòu)罪即捕”的審前羈押訴訟制度有了很大突破。非羈押性強(qiáng)制措施,在未來公安工作中必然將廣泛使用。但是,由于公安傳統(tǒng)偵查模式固化、非羈押性強(qiáng)制措施本身適用范圍模糊、被害人不理解、不認(rèn)同非羈押訴訟等因素影響,新法在實(shí)際執(zhí)行過程中遭遇到不少阻礙。傳統(tǒng)上,公安機(jī)關(guān)為方便偵查、獲取口供、保障刑事訴訟順利進(jìn)行,往往會(huì)更側(cè)重審前羈押,而非羈押性強(qiáng)制措施,如取保候?qū)彙⒈O(jiān)視居住,更多的是在羈押期限屆滿或不宜收押等情況下才會(huì)使用。因此,公安機(jī)關(guān)在非羈押性強(qiáng)制措施的運(yùn)用上仍存在“以押代偵”的情況。此外,新法本身適用范圍模糊也造成公安人員在操作上無所適從的困境。最后,在高羈押率情況下,公安部門也會(huì)受到來自外界的種種壓力,使辦案民警在執(zhí)行新法時(shí)出現(xiàn)畏難情緒�？傊�,新《刑事訴訟法》仍然存在種種理論和實(shí)踐問題亟待解決。本文從公安工作實(shí)踐經(jīng)驗(yàn)出發(fā),分析新《刑事訴訟法》在公安機(jī)關(guān)辦案過程中的現(xiàn)狀及其難點(diǎn),為相關(guān)研究提供了第一手資料。此外,本文通過比較方法,借鑒了歐美國家非羈押訴訟制度的成功經(jīng)驗(yàn),并從現(xiàn)行非羈押性強(qiáng)制措施適用范圍和非羈押訴訟程序兩方面,提出完善我國非羈押性強(qiáng)制措施立法、重構(gòu)非羈押性強(qiáng)制措施使用權(quán)、科學(xué)推進(jìn)非羈押訴訟公安執(zhí)法、建立配套保障機(jī)制的初步設(shè)想。對創(chuàng)新非羈押訴訟公安工作機(jī)制,順應(yīng)刑事和解之風(fēng),銜接新舊訴訟機(jī)制,改善和平衡我國的司法羈押制度,有一定的理論和現(xiàn)實(shí)意義。
[Abstract]:In the new Criminal procedure Law, which was promulgated and implemented on January 1, 2013, "protecting human rights" is written into the law for the first time in China, and "punishing crime and protecting human rights" becomes the spirit of the new law. Under this background, the non-custodial lawsuit becomes the inevitable trend of our country's criminal procedure reform. At present, "Criminal reconciliation system" and "Special procedure for minors" have made a great breakthrough in the pretrial detention litigation system of "constitution of crime is arrest" and "constitution of crime is arrest". Non-custodial coercive measures will inevitably be widely used in the future public security work. However, due to the solidification of the traditional investigation mode of public security, the ambiguity of the scope of application of the non-custodial coercive measures, the lack of understanding of the victim, the lack of recognition of the non-custodial litigation and other factors, the new law has encountered many obstacles in the actual implementation process. Traditionally, in order to facilitate investigation, obtain confessions and ensure the smooth conduct of criminal proceedings, public security organs tend to place more emphasis on pretrial detention than on custodial coercive measures, such as bail pending trial, surveillance of residence, It is more likely to be used only when the term of detention expires or it is not suitable to be taken into custody. Therefore, there still exists the situation of "remand investigation" in the use of non-custodial coercive measures by public security organs. In addition, the ambiguity of the scope of application of the new law also makes the public security personnel at a loss in operation. Finally, under the situation of high detention rate, the public security department will also be subjected to various kinds of pressure from outside, which makes the police in handling cases appear the fear of difficulties in the implementation of the new law. In short, the new Criminal procedure Law still has a variety of theoretical and practical problems to be solved. Based on the practical experience of the public security work, this paper analyzes the present situation and difficulties of the new Criminal procedure Law in the process of handling cases by the public security organs, and provides first-hand information for the relevant research. In addition, through the comparative method, this paper draws lessons from the successful experience of the non-custodial litigation system in Europe and the United States, and proposes to perfect the legislation of non-custodial coercive measures in our country from two aspects: the applicable scope of the current non-custodial coercive measures and the non-custodial procedural procedure. Reconstructing the right to use non-custodial coercive measures, scientifically promoting the enforcement of law by public security in non-custodial litigation, and establishing a supporting safeguard mechanism. It is of theoretical and practical significance to innovate the public security work mechanism of non-custodial litigation, to conform to the trend of criminal reconciliation, to link up with the old and new litigation mechanisms, and to improve and balance the judicial custody system in our country.
【學(xué)位授予單位】：暨南大學(xué)
【學(xué)位級別】：碩士
【學(xué)位授予年份】：2014
【分類號】：D925.2

【共引文獻(xiàn)】

相關(guān)期刊論文 前10條

1 王俊娥;;論庭前會(huì)議制度存在的問題及完善[J];法學(xué)雜志;2015年12期

2 張?jiān)��?;羈押“必要性”之認(rèn)定問題研究[J];麗水學(xué)院學(xué)報(bào);2014年01期

3 成都市龍泉驛區(qū)人民檢察院課題組;姚廣平;唐海榕;;刑事偵查中物的強(qiáng)制措施制度構(gòu)想[J];中國檢察官;2014年09期

4 林培曉;;人權(quán)視角下的羈押必要性審查制度完善與改革[J];河北法學(xué);2014年06期

5 潘申明;劉浪;;非法證據(jù)排除中偵查人員出庭作證制度研究[J];華東政法大學(xué)學(xué)報(bào);2014年03期

6 劉文化;;全程錄音錄像制度之正讀[J];南華大學(xué)學(xué)報(bào)(社會(huì)科學(xué)版);2014年03期

7 張進(jìn)德;;論刑事訴訟中的監(jiān)督檢察[J];理論月刊;2014年07期

8 陳瑞華;;非法證據(jù)排除程序再討論[J];法學(xué)研究;2014年02期

9 王建輝;林立軍;;繼續(xù)羈押必要性審查的程序建構(gòu)[J];中國檢察官;2014年21期

10 張永進(jìn);;假命題抑或真問題:網(wǎng)絡(luò)時(shí)代的媒體審判辨析[J];三峽大學(xué)學(xué)報(bào)(人文社會(huì)科學(xué)版);2015年02期

相關(guān)博士學(xué)位論文 前7條

1 王滿生;刑事訴訟中程序法事實(shí)的證明研究[D];西南政法大學(xué);2011年

2 李亞凝;本土價(jià)值的回歸：中國指導(dǎo)性案例制度研究[D];廈門大學(xué);2014年

3 楊明芳;英國刑法一般辯護(hù)事由研究[D];吉林大學(xué);2014年

4 吳憲國;檢察機(jī)關(guān)排除非法證據(jù)研究[D];吉林大學(xué);2014年

5 么寧;檢察業(yè)務(wù)考評機(jī)制研究[D];西南政法大學(xué);2014年

6 王海;被告人翻供問題研究[D];西南政法大學(xué);2015年

7 葉銳;未定罪沒收制度研究[D];西南政法大學(xué);2015年

，

本文編號：1902346