發(fā)布時(shí)間：2018-05-20 07:00

  本文選題：審查逮捕階段 + 律師參與　； 參考：《西南政法大學(xué)》2015年碩士論文

【摘要】：2012年《刑事訴訟法》和2014年《最高人民檢察院關(guān)于依法保障律師執(zhí)業(yè)權(quán)利的規(guī)定》為律師參與審查逮捕程序提供了法律上的支持和保障。律師參與審查逮捕程序,體現(xiàn)了司法公正、司法效率的理念。由于我國(guó)的立法剛剛起步,各項(xiàng)規(guī)定比較粗糙,其中有一些規(guī)定僅僅具有實(shí)踐指導(dǎo)意義,缺乏可操作性。盡管某些地方探索了一些律師參與審查逮捕程序的方法,也取得一定實(shí)效,但是這一新生機(jī)制在實(shí)踐中仍然處于試水階段。律師是否參與審查逮捕程序,參與情況如何,在一定程度上關(guān)系到當(dāng)事人的合法權(quán)益是否得到有效保護(hù),保護(hù)的程度如何,最終關(guān)系到司法公正和司法效率的實(shí)現(xiàn)。為此,有必要對(duì)其進(jìn)行深入而全面的考察和分析。本文采用實(shí)證調(diào)研的方式,針對(duì)律師參與的總體狀況和參與模式進(jìn)行具體考察,發(fā)現(xiàn)律師參與審查逮捕階段的一些問題并分析其原因。據(jù)此,結(jié)合理論和實(shí)踐提出一些完善建議,探索適合我國(guó)的律師參與審查逮捕程序的運(yùn)行模式。本文除引言和結(jié)語(yǔ)外,包括四個(gè)部分:第一部分論述審查逮捕階段律師參與制度的基本理論。分別從程序公正、實(shí)體公正、司法效率三個(gè)方面評(píng)判律師參與審查逮捕階段的理論價(jià)值。首先,律師參與審查逮捕階段,增加了審查逮捕程序的透明性,逮捕決定將以看的見的方式作出。其次,律師參與后,檢察機(jī)關(guān)可以兼聽則明做出正確的逮捕決定。最后,律師參與后,可以幫助檢察關(guān)機(jī)盡早發(fā)現(xiàn)問題,提升審查效率,并且可以避免啟動(dòng)后續(xù)程序,減少申訴、上訪的案件數(shù),避免司法資源浪費(fèi)。第二部分采用實(shí)證調(diào)研的方式對(duì)C市B區(qū)、J區(qū)基層人民檢察院律師參與審查逮捕階段的情況進(jìn)行全面考察。首先考察審查逮捕階段律師參與情況的總體狀況。包括律師參與的案件總數(shù)、律師參與的方式、律師參與的案件類型、律師參與對(duì)逮捕制度的影響、檢察官對(duì)律師參與的態(tài)度、律師在司法實(shí)踐中的做法這六個(gè)方面。通過調(diào)研發(fā)現(xiàn),律師參與制度總體運(yùn)行效果不佳。雖然律師參與的案件類型廣泛,但是總體參與案件的比例較低,對(duì)最終逮捕決定的影響不大。加之某些檢察官和律師沒有充分認(rèn)識(shí)到該制度的重要性,不支持或不愿意提前介入訴訟程序,使該制度在一定程度上被架空。接著,深入考察律師參與審查逮捕階段的具體模式,一種是公開聽取律師意見模式,一種是細(xì)化聽取律師意見模式,無論采取哪種模式,聽取律師意見都是必不可少的環(huán)節(jié)。第三部分立足實(shí)證考察結(jié)果,發(fā)現(xiàn)律師參與審查逮捕階段的問題主要是律師參與案件比例低、法律援助方式介入難、律師參與對(duì)逮捕結(jié)果影響不大、檢察官和律師存在隔閡、律師提出辯護(hù)意見質(zhì)量不高等。這些問題的出現(xiàn)阻礙律師參與制度的運(yùn)行,造成運(yùn)行效果不佳的原因主要有以下幾方面:一是參與主體觀念上的原因。某些犯罪嫌疑人不相信律師,不愿意委托律師;公安機(jī)關(guān)、檢察機(jī)關(guān)的一些工作人員阻礙律師行使權(quán)利,不重視律師意見;律師往往不愿意過早介入訴訟程序。二是機(jī)制上的原因。律師參與審查逮捕程序缺乏統(tǒng)一的規(guī)定,沒有明確規(guī)定聽取律師意見的案件范圍,也沒有統(tǒng)一的告知、接收、審查處理程序,而且后續(xù)的救濟(jì)程序缺失,總體操作性不強(qiáng)。三是其他方面的原因,包括法律援助不力,部分律師怠于履行職責(zé)甚至違規(guī)、違法操作等。第四部分根據(jù)調(diào)研中發(fā)現(xiàn)的問題對(duì)癥下藥,提出完善律師參與審查逮捕程序的建議。針對(duì)調(diào)研中發(fā)現(xiàn)的問題,首先從轉(zhuǎn)變觀念,提高審查逮捕階段律師介入率入手。檢察機(jī)關(guān)要重視律師意見,保持客觀、中立立場(chǎng);律師要提高參與意識(shí);社會(huì)公眾要提高法律意識(shí),以構(gòu)建良好的司法環(huán)境。其次,合理構(gòu)建律師參與程序,明確聽取律師意見的案件范圍,建立和完善告知、聽取、接收、審查處理、反饋說理程序,并建立一定的救濟(jì)機(jī)制,保障律師參與程序的統(tǒng)一運(yùn)行。再次,完善配套措施。這些措施主要包括,加強(qiáng)公安機(jī)關(guān)、檢察機(jī)關(guān)、律師三者之間的信息交流與銜接,以保障律師及時(shí)介入審查逮捕程序;完善法律援助制度,保障犯罪嫌疑人及時(shí)得到律師的幫助;強(qiáng)化律師的權(quán)利,增強(qiáng)其辯護(hù)能力;同時(shí)還要加強(qiáng)對(duì)律師行為的監(jiān)督制約,以確保律師正確履行職責(zé)。
[Abstract]:In 2012, the law of criminal procedure and the provisions of the Supreme People's Procuratorate on the protection of the rights of lawyers in accordance with the law in 2014 provide legal support and guarantee for lawyers to participate in the review and arrest procedures. Lawyers participate in the review and arrest procedure, which embodies the concept of judicial justice and judicial efficiency. The legislation has just started in China and the provisions are compared. There are some rules which have practical guiding significance and lack of maneuverability. Although some places have explored some ways for lawyers to participate in the review of arrest procedures, some results have been achieved. However, this new mechanism is still in the stage of trial water. The degree is related to the effective protection of the legitimate rights and interests of the parties, the extent to which the degree of protection is related to the realization of judicial justice and judicial efficiency. Therefore, it is necessary to carry out in-depth and comprehensive investigation and analysis. On the basis of the investigation, we find that lawyers participate in the review of the arrest stage and analyze the reasons. According to this, some perfect suggestions are put forward in combination with the theory and practice to explore the operation mode of the lawyer's participation in the review and arrest procedure in our country. In addition to the introduction and conclusion, this article includes four parts: the first part discusses the system of examining the lawyer participation in the arrest stage. The basic theory is to judge the theoretical value of lawyers' participation in the review and arrest stage from three aspects of procedural justice, substantive justice and judicial efficiency. First, lawyers participate in the review and arrest stage, increasing the transparency of the review and arrest procedure, and the arrest decision will be made in the way of seeing. Secondly, after the lawyer's participation, the procuratorial organ can listen and listen. In the end, after the lawyer's participation, the lawyer can help the procuratorate to discover the problems as soon as possible, improve the efficiency of the review, and avoid the start of the follow-up procedure, reduce the appeal, the number of cases of the petition, and avoid the waste of judicial resources. The second part uses the empirical research method to participate in the B District of C city and the lawyer of the grass-roots people's Procuratorate in the J district. Review the situation of the arrest stage in an all-round way. First, examine the overall situation of the participation of lawyers in the arrest stage, including the total number of cases involving lawyers, the way lawyers participate, the types of lawyers involved, the influence of lawyers' participation on the arrest system, the attitude of the prosecutor to the law teacher, and the practice of lawyers in the judicial practice. These six aspects. Through the investigation, it is found that the overall operation of the lawyer participation system is not very effective. Although the lawyer's participation in the case is widely used, the proportion of the cases is low, and the influence on the final arrest decision is small. In addition, some prosecutors and lawyers do not fully recognize the importance of the system, and do not support or be reluctant to introduce in advance. After entering the procedure, the system is to a certain extent. Then, the specific mode of the lawyer's participation in the review and arrest stage is examined. One is to listen to the lawyer's opinion pattern publicly, one is to refine the lawyer's opinion pattern. No matter which mode is taken, it is essential to listen to the lawyers' opinions. The third part is based on the empirical test. It was found that the lawyer's participation in the review of the arrest stage was mainly due to the low proportion of lawyers involved in the case, the difficulty in the intervention of legal aid, the little influence of the lawyer participation on the arrest results, the estrangement of the prosecutor and the lawyer, and the low quality of the lawyer's defense opinion. The reasons for the poor effect are as follows: first, the reasons for the participation of the main body. Some suspects do not believe in lawyers and do not want to entrust a lawyer; the public security organs, some of the staff of the procuratorial organs impede the exercise of the rights of lawyers and do not attach importance to lawyers' opinions; the lawyers are often reluctant to intervene early in the proceedings. Two is the mechanism. The reason. The lawyer's participation in the review and arrest procedure lacks a unified provision, does not specify the scope of the case of hearing the opinions of the lawyer, nor is it unifying, receiving, examining and handling procedures, and the subsequent relief procedures are missing and the overall operability is not strong. Three is the original cause of other aspects, including inadequate legal aid, and some lawyers are slack in the performance of their duties. The fourth part, according to the problems found in the investigation, puts forward the suggestions to improve the lawyer's participation in the review and arrest procedure. In view of the problems found in the investigation, the first step is to change the concept to improve the lawyer's intervention rate in the arrest stage. The lawyer should improve the consciousness of participation; the public should raise the legal consciousness to build a good judicial environment. Secondly, it is necessary to establish a lawyer's participation procedure, to listen to the scope of the lawyer's opinion, to establish and perfect the information, to hear, receive, review and handle, to feed back the procedure of reasoning, and to establish a certain relief mechanism to protect the lawyer from participating in the procedure. All these measures include strengthening the information exchange and connection between the public security organs, the procuratorial organs and the three lawyers, in order to guarantee the lawyer's timely intervention in the review and arrest procedure, to improve the legal aid system, to guarantee the criminal suspects to get the help of lawyers in time, to strengthen the rights of lawyers and to enhance their defense ability. At the same time, we must strengthen the supervision and restriction of lawyers' behaviors so as to ensure that lawyers perform their duties correctly.
【學(xué)位授予單位】：西南政法大學(xué)
【學(xué)位級(jí)別】：碩士
【學(xué)位授予年份】：2015
【分類號(hào)】：D925.2

【相似文獻(xiàn)】

相關(guān)期刊論文 前10條

1 王超剛;復(fù)雜案件審查逮捕“五個(gè)一”[J];人民檢察;2001年06期

2 晏金翅;《審查逮捕案件意見書》證據(jù)部分的寫法[J];人民檢察;2002年09期

3 馬海艦;提高審查逮捕案件質(zhì)量問題探討[J];人民檢察;2003年08期

4 朱友強(qiáng);審查逮捕工作方式改革中應(yīng)注意的若干問題[J];檢察實(shí)踐;2003年05期

5 張紅霞;審查逮捕意見書應(yīng)予改革[J];檢察實(shí)踐;2004年01期

6 高崧;談如何撰寫好《審查逮捕案件意見書》[J];檢察實(shí)踐;2005年02期

7 石麗美;;審查逮捕工作亟須解決的問題[J];中國(guó)檢察官;2006年03期

8 陳剛;盧新華;;審查逮捕適用標(biāo)準(zhǔn)芻議[J];人民檢察;2006年10期

9 蔣潤(rùn)華;歐陽(yáng)軍;;論我國(guó)審查逮捕程序中當(dāng)事人權(quán)益的保障[J];中共桂林市委黨校學(xué)報(bào);2007年01期

10 劉林吶;;對(duì)審查逮捕聽證制度的幾點(diǎn)思考[J];晉中學(xué)院學(xué)報(bào);2007年02期

相關(guān)會(huì)議論文 前10條

1 朱元曉;;律師介入未成年人審查逮捕程序的可行性思考[A];第八屆國(guó)家高級(jí)檢察官論壇論文集：特別程序與檢察監(jiān)督[C];2012年

2 侯伯超;李奎;;審查逮捕工作的挑戰(zhàn)與革新[A];第八屆國(guó)家高級(jí)檢察官論壇論文集：強(qiáng)制措施制度的修改及執(zhí)行[C];2012年

3 林雪標(biāo);周孫章;;審查逮捕程序改革的路徑考量[A];第八屆國(guó)家高級(jí)檢察官論壇論文集：強(qiáng)制措施制度的修改及執(zhí)行[C];2012年

4 杜杭明;;審查逮捕工作機(jī)制改革研究[A];當(dāng)代法學(xué)論壇（二０一一年第三輯）[C];2011年

5 高煥彩;;未成年人刑事案件審查逮捕中的社會(huì)調(diào)查淺析[A];中國(guó)社會(huì)科學(xué)研究論叢2013卷第1輯[C];2013年

6 朱艷菊;;構(gòu)建適應(yīng)未成年人的審查逮捕機(jī)制[A];中國(guó)犯罪學(xué)學(xué)會(huì)第十八屆學(xué)術(shù)研討會(huì)論文集（上冊(cè)）[C];2009年

7 連小可;李薇薇;李勝斌;;審查逮捕規(guī)定的變化及檢察機(jī)關(guān)的應(yīng)對(duì)[A];第八屆國(guó)家高級(jí)檢察官論壇論文集：強(qiáng)制措施制度的修改及執(zhí)行[C];2012年

8 周鵬;;審查逮捕訊問犯罪嫌疑人之思考[A];第八屆國(guó)家高級(jí)檢察官論壇論文集：強(qiáng)制措施制度的修改及執(zhí)行[C];2012年

9 沈威;;刑訴法修改后審查逮捕階段三角訴訟結(jié)構(gòu)之構(gòu)建[A];第八屆國(guó)家高級(jí)檢察官論壇論文集：強(qiáng)制措施制度的修改及執(zhí)行[C];2012年

10 劉善軍;邵健兒;;未成年人案件審查逮捕之制度體系構(gòu)建[A];中國(guó)犯罪學(xué)學(xué)會(huì)第十八屆學(xué)術(shù)研討會(huì)論文集（中冊(cè)）[C];2009年

相關(guān)重要報(bào)紙文章 前10條

1 張智輝;審查逮捕：需要理論闡述,更需實(shí)證研究[N];檢察日?qǐng)?bào);2006年

2 王海;建議修改審查逮捕辦案期限[N];江蘇經(jīng)濟(jì)報(bào);2006年

3 王冬梅;自治區(qū)檢察院將今年定為審查逮捕質(zhì)量年[N];內(nèi)蒙古日?qǐng)?bào)(漢);2006年

4 劉英團(tuán);審查逮捕時(shí)聽取嫌犯意見是司法理念的突破[N];中國(guó)審計(jì)報(bào);2008年

5 記者 呂欣;余慶檢察院保障審查逮捕質(zhì)量[N];遵義日?qǐng)?bào);2009年

6 趙杰;強(qiáng)化內(nèi)外監(jiān)督 最高檢上提職務(wù)犯罪審查逮捕決定權(quán)[N];第一財(cái)經(jīng)日?qǐng)?bào);2009年

7 記者 杜萌;律師第一時(shí)間介入審查逮捕程序意義何在[N];法制日?qǐng)?bào);2009年

8 馬紅 高擁軍;利津縣檢察院“四步”工作法規(guī)范審查逮捕行為[N];東營(yíng)日?qǐng)?bào);2009年

9 王鴻;審查逮捕犯罪嫌疑人訊問技巧初探[N];貴州民族報(bào);2009年

10 秦云峰;陽(yáng)城檢察院出臺(tái)審查逮捕階段律師介入辦法[N];太行日?qǐng)?bào);2010年

相關(guān)碩士學(xué)位論文 前10條

1 潘博;審查逮捕運(yùn)行機(jī)制實(shí)證研究[D];西南政法大學(xué);2011年

2 譙惠方;關(guān)于M縣檢察院審查逮捕案件質(zhì)量的調(diào)查報(bào)告[D];西南政法大學(xué);2011年

3 韓晨旭;審查逮捕實(shí)務(wù)研究[D];吉林大學(xué);2011年

4 王曉偉;檢察相關(guān)審查逮捕制度研究[D];寧波大學(xué);2011年

5 陳艷;審查逮捕聽證程序研究[D];西南政法大學(xué);2011年

6 張浩;職務(wù)犯罪審查逮捕權(quán)上提一級(jí)改革調(diào)研報(bào)告[D];西南政法大學(xué);2011年

7 李姝;職務(wù)犯罪案件審查逮捕決定權(quán)上提一級(jí)研究[D];西南政法大學(xué);2011年

8 王秀文;職務(wù)犯罪案件審查逮捕權(quán)上提一級(jí)的調(diào)查及分析[D];山西大學(xué);2011年

9 左紅云;職務(wù)犯罪審查逮捕制度研究[D];安徽大學(xué);2011年

10 邱艷;未成年犯罪嫌疑人審查逮捕制度初探[D];西南政法大學(xué);2011年

，

本文編號(hào)：1913634