發(fā)布時(shí)間：2018-05-20 01:27

  本文選題：逮捕羈押 + 捕押合一��； 參考：《安徽大學(xué)》2014年碩士論文

【摘要】：縱觀世界各地的法律制度,主要存在著兩種逮捕押制度模式,一種是逮捕與押分離的制度模式,這種模式以西方國(guó)家為代表；一是逮捕和羈押合一的模式,以我國(guó)最為典型。兩種制度模式不論是在概念上還是內(nèi)涵上,亦或是審批程序、具體適用對(duì)象上都有著極大的差異。在西方國(guó)家法律規(guī)定中,逮捕只是強(qiáng)制嫌疑人到案的手段,一般不超過(guò)48小時(shí),而羈押才是長(zhǎng)期剝奪嫌疑人人身自由的措施,兩者是互不隸屬,相互獨(dú)立的兩項(xiàng)強(qiáng)制措施。但在我國(guó)刑事訴訟中,羈押是拘留與逮捕的當(dāng)然結(jié)果,只要有拘留或逮捕,必然引起羈押。而且,我國(guó)的未決羈押與刑事拘留、逮捕無(wú)論在適用程序還是在適用條件上,均未發(fā)生分離,兩者是合二為一的�？梢�(jiàn)我國(guó)是逮捕羈押合一的制度模式。即我國(guó)沒(méi)有一個(gè)獨(dú)立的、可稱其為“羈押”的強(qiáng)制措施,而僅僅是拘留、逮捕后引發(fā)的當(dāng)然結(jié)果,是逮捕和拘留這兩項(xiàng)強(qiáng)制措施的組成內(nèi)容。根據(jù)我國(guó)法律規(guī)定,可以得出,逮捕和拘留構(gòu)成了未決羈押的全部?jī)?nèi)容。在司法實(shí)踐中,大量超期羈押和刑訊逼供的現(xiàn)象都處于這個(gè)階段,可以看出,逮捕羈押制度是否合理直接關(guān)系到人權(quán)保障問(wèn)題。而這些問(wèn)題的出現(xiàn)也暴露出了逮捕羈押合一制度模式的弊端。通過(guò)兩種制度模式的比較,在借鑒、參考西方國(guó)家逮捕羈押制度的基礎(chǔ)上提出在中國(guó)構(gòu)建與中國(guó)國(guó)情相適應(yīng)的逮捕與羈押分離制度,在此基礎(chǔ)上,構(gòu)建結(jié)構(gòu)嚴(yán)謹(jǐn),內(nèi)容合理的逮捕羈押適用條件、審查方式、審查程序和救濟(jì)途徑。
[Abstract]:Throughout the world, there are two kinds of arrest and custody system models, one is the separation of arrest and custody, which is represented by western countries, the other is the integration of arrest and custody, which is the most typical in our country. There are great differences between the two models in concept and connotation, as well as in the examination and approval procedure. In the western countries, arrest is only the means to force the suspect to the case, usually not more than 48 hours, and detention is the measure of depriving the suspect of his or her personal liberty for a long time. The two measures are not subordinate to each other and independent of each other. But in our country, custody is the natural result of detention and arrest, so long as there is detention or arrest, it will inevitably lead to custody. Moreover, there is no separation between the pending detention and the criminal detention in our country, neither in the applicable procedure nor in the applicable conditions, but the two are combined. We can see that our country is the system model of arrest and custody. That is, our country does not have an independent coercive measure, which can be called "detention", but only detention. The natural result of arrest is the content of the two coercive measures: arrest and detention. According to the law of our country, it can be concluded that arrest and detention constitute the whole content of pending detention. In judicial practice, a large number of cases of prolonged detention and extortion of confessions by torture are at this stage. It can be seen that whether the system of arrest and detention is reasonable or not is directly related to the protection of human rights. The emergence of these problems also exposed the malpractice of the system of arrest and custody. Based on the comparison of the two systems, and referring to the arrest and detention system in western countries, this paper proposes to construct a separate arrest and detention system in China, which is suited to China's national conditions, and on this basis, to construct a rigorous structure. Reasonable conditions of arrest and detention, review method, review procedure and remedy.
【學(xué)位授予單位】：安徽大學(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3條

1 元明;陶健旺;;逮捕工作中存在的主要問(wèn)題及對(duì)策[J];人民檢察;2007年11期

2 李忠誠(chéng);刑事強(qiáng)制措施功能研究[J];法制與社會(huì)發(fā)展;2002年05期

3 汪建成,冀祥德;我國(guó)未決羈押制度的批判性重構(gòu)[J];山東公安�？茖W(xué)校學(xué)報(bào);2004年01期

，

本文編號(hào)：1912584