刑事庭审实质化研究

Research on the Substantiation of the Criminal Court Hearing

成果信息
DC信息
传播影响力
本库下载频次:
本库浏览频次:
CNKI下载频次:0

归属学者：

李冉毅

归属院系：

法学院

作者：

李冉毅

导师：

潘金贵

导师单位：

法学院

学位：

博士

语种：

中文

关键词：

庭审实质化;以审判为中心;庭审形式化;直接言词审理

摘要：

刑事庭审实质化是针对我国实践中的庭审形式化现象提出的理论命题和改革目标。党的十八届四中全会通过的《关于全面推进依法治国若干重大问题的决定》,明确提出推进以审判为中心的诉讼制度改革,其主要目标之一是“保证庭审在查明事实、认定证据、保护诉权、公正裁判中发挥决定性作用”,即实现庭审的实质化。庭审实质化作为当前刑事司法改革的热点,其中很多问题值得深入研究。故此,本文立足于我国刑事庭审实践的现状,对庭审实质化进行话语解构,分析庭审非实质化现象和改革面临的问题,探索我国庭审实质化改革的可能进路。全文除引言外,共分五章,约21万字。第一章研究刑事庭审实质化的基础理论。主要包括三方面内容:一是对庭审实质化及相关术语的内涵进行解读。从字面含义看,可以将庭审实质化理解为庭审能够在展开的过程中有效发挥其功能;从内在要求看,庭审实质化理论与现代刑事诉讼制度理论相契合,以公正审判为核心价值追求,以程序运行的有效性为主要目标。庭审实质化与以审判为中心联系紧密,庭审实质化是以审判为中心的主要内容,两者属于从属关系;从我国当前的改革重心来看,两者的目标基本一致;从以审判为中心和庭审实质化的相互促进来看,两者具有明显的正相关关系,主要以庭审实质化的建设推动以审判为中心的发展为主。二是对庭审实质化的多维度阐释。“四个在法庭”是根据庭审实质化的内在要求作出的最直观表述,在不同语境下可以对这一术语展开多维度的阐释。作为一种理应追求的诉讼状态,庭审实质化除了指向理论上的理想模式外,实践中还存在不同程度和标准的区别;作为衡量制度构成的标准,庭审实质化对庭审制度体系提出一系列要求,并引导其完善;作为指引性的诉讼理念,庭审实质化突出强调庭审的独立价值,成为推动改革和实务持续向前发展的动力源泉。三是对庭审实质化正当性的分析。查证案件事实和保障辩方权利这两项主要功能是庭审实质化的动力根源,在此基础上还可以达到增强司法权威的效果。第二章研究我国庭审实质化改革的变迁进路。审视庭审实质化改革的变迁进路,可以发现历次改革的局限和未竟课题。目前为止,可以将我国庭审实质化改革分为三个发展阶段。第一阶段是以1996年《刑事诉讼法》修改为契机的控辩式庭审方式改革,试图通过发挥控辩双方在庭审中的作用实现庭审实质化。控辩式庭审方式改革减少了“先定后审”的现象,使庭审结构趋于合理,但没有改变控辩难以平等对抗、法庭难以言词审理、裁判难以源自庭审的常态。造成此次庭审实质化改革步履维艰的深层原因有:庭审方式变革的立法推动主义和大量配套制度的缺位,导致实践中庭审的对抗局面难以自发形成,也无法得到制度的保障;以打击犯罪为核心的价值追求和和忽视权利保障的改革逻辑,导致转型后的法庭审理仍然是治罪的一道工序。第二阶段是从2010年“两个证据规定”的出台到2012年《刑事诉讼法》再修改而形成的诉讼法制的进一步完善。证据法基本原则、非法证据排除规则、庭前会议制度的确立,以及证人、鉴定出庭制度、辩护制度、简易程序的改革,对于庭审实质化有比较明显的促进作用。修法后存在的阻碍庭审实质化的主要问题有:庭前会议效果不彰并存在实体审的风险;证人、鉴定人不出庭的情况没有明显好转;案卷笔录的问题没有得到重视;法庭证据调查程序不够合理和充实。第三阶段是正在进行的以审判为中心的诉讼制度改革,旨在通过确立审判的决定性地位和庭审实质化的改革重心来推进庭审实质化。庭审实质化的话语地位得到明显提升,迎来了发展的最佳时期,但维系公检法三机关的传统关系和强调惩罚犯罪的价值追求可能会对庭审实质化改革有所限制。正在进行的庭审实质化的地方性试点改革在检验技术和制度的操作性、形成指导性规则、积累可推广的改革经验等方面取得成效。但试点改革的方法本身存在一定局限性;试点效果不能代表刑事审判的普遍情况,也很难在短期内成为常态;试点案件仍然潜藏着庭审形式化的风险。第三章研究我国刑事庭审非实质化的现实样态。考察我国实践中庭审非实质化的现实样态,可以充分了解我国实践中庭审实质化的虚无现象和需要重点解决的问题。在已有实证研究成果的基础上,通过对个案庭审过程和判决内容进行分析和解读,可以展现实践中庭审过程和法庭裁判非实质化的典型样态,进而结合数据统计和访谈分析庭审形式化的成因。首先,庭审过程非实质化的现实样态可以总结为:对案件事实的调查不充分,即定案的主要证据没有经过充分的质证和辩论。主要表现在三个方面:控方过度批量举证,法庭调查的争点不突出;举证、质证方式过于僵化,对事实争点的质辩不充分;关键证人不出庭,无法展开实质性的人证调查。导致我国庭审过程非实质化的主要原因有:法庭调查以案卷笔录为主要对象;控辩双方力量不均衡;辩方质证权得不到有效保障;通过庭审解决问题的理念欠缺;庭审证据调查缺乏技术和制度的支持;案多人少压力下的效率追求。其次,法庭裁判实质化必须以庭审过程实质化为基础,如果庭审过程形式化,裁判就不可能以法庭审理的内容为根据,裁判就失去了正当性基础。除此之外,法庭裁判非实质化还表现在两个方面:从审判主体行使裁判权的情况来看,法庭裁判形式化表现为审理者未实质性行使裁判权;从法庭审理与裁判结论的关联性来看,庭审未对裁判结论的形成发挥实质性的影响。导致我国法庭裁判形式化的主要原因有:裁判决策的行政化;庭审与裁判联结被阻断;对证据相互印证的追求;审判的决定性地位缺失。第四章研究我国庭审实质化改革的思路与方法。我国一直存在的刑事庭审形式化现象和多年来步履维艰的庭审实质化改革预示着,庭审实质化改革是一项远未完成,仍需持续推进的艰巨任务,设计并坚持执行合理、务实的改革方案,至少可以保证我国庭审实质化持续向前发展。首先应清晰认识我国庭审实质化改革的主要推动力和现实阻力,主要推动力包括理论界的倡导和智力支持、实务界的努力以及官方决策的推动,实务界存在的等待思想、本位主义和畏难情绪成为改革的阻力。其次应当明确庭审实质化改革的整体思路。基于以往改革的经验和多方面因素制约的现实,我国只能渐进式地推进庭审实质化。就改革的起点而言,应当确立庭审实质化的基本理念,保证庭审实质化具有正向发展的观念指引;应当明确庭审实质化的底线标准,敦促和指引实务运作维系最基本的正当性;应当以庭审实质化的标准设定制度目标,逐步改良和完善制度体系。就改革的具体方向而言,需要将现实不完善的运作情形往理想状态推进,具体包括:从案卷笔录审理到直接言词审理;从形式化证明到严格证明;从控辩失衡到控辩平衡;从庭外裁判到庭上裁判。然后,应当明确庭审实质化改革需要正视的基本的策略性问题和技术性问题,应当正视的策略性问题有:重塑对庭审实质化及其改革的认识框架;官方决策从宣示性向实质性的转变;正视实务工作者的合理需求。应当正视的技术性问题有:正确认识和处理案卷笔录对庭审实质化的影响;重视庭审实质化的诉权保障功能。最后应当明确庭审实质化改革的方法。从立法推动到试点改革的逻辑转换,体现了改革者对于制度变革的谨慎态度,以试点改革为主,推进庭审实质化改革还需综合运用顶层设计、文本阐释、制度立法等具体方法。同时应注意对庭审实质化发展的实效进行评估,具体分为个体性评估和整体性评估,庭审实质化的发展情况主要依据整体性评估来判断。第五章研究我国庭审实质化改革的主要举措。遵循庭审实质化改革的基本思路,将庭审实质化改革的主要举措分为两部分。第一部分是完善庭审制度及相关证据制度,具体包括五方面内容:一是完善庭前会议制度。以有效整理争点和解决程序争议为目标,明确庭前会议的程序和实体准备功能,增加由控辩双方依诉权推动庭前会议召开的启动方式,明确庭前会议解决的具体事项、程序和效力,并防范庭前会议实体审。二是在确立直接言词原则的基础上,明确赋予被告人对质询问权,以诉权和裁判权相互制衡的方式推动证人出庭作证,并完善证人出庭作证制度和证据能力规则,以促进关键证人出庭的常态化和限制案卷笔录的使用。三是完善庭审证据调查制度。建立前置的争点整理程序,完善以交叉询问为主的人证调查程序,建立诱导性询问规则,规范法官释明权和庭外调查权的运用。四是建立法定化的庭审笔录制度,将其作为监督、制约庭审过程的材料。规范庭审笔录的内容及制作流程,明确庭审笔录的证据属性和证明效力,以及阅览和使用权限,同时实现庭审笔录制作的技术化和健全庭审录音录像制度。五是改革完善人民陪审员制度,推动公民实质参与刑事审判。完善陪审员制度的具体实施机制,针对部分案件建立多名陪审员参审的大合议庭制度。第二部分是改善庭审实质化的支持性要素,具体包括四方面内容:一是对合议庭裁判权行使的保障,以改良审判与侦查、公诉的关系和审判权运行机制为主。二是完善刑事审判分流机制,以完善刑事速裁程序为主,并加强与认罪认罚从宽制度的衔接。三是完善控辩平等参与的保障措施,以提高普通程序辩护率和辩护质量为主。四是提升诉讼主体的技术素养,根据庭审实质化的技术要求,提升法官驾驭调控庭审、当庭认证和裁判分析的能力,提升公诉人和律师庭前准备、法庭举证、质证和论辩的能力。

学科：

诉讼法学

提交日期：

2018-04-20

引用参考：

李冉毅. 刑事庭审实质化研究[D]. 西南政法大学,2017.

全文附件授权许可：

知识共享许可协议-署名

  • dc.title
  • 刑事庭审实质化研究
  • dc.title
  • Research on the Substantiation of the Criminal Court Hearing
  • dc.contributor.schoolno
  • b2014030106064
  • dc.contributor.author
  • 李冉毅
  • dc.contributor.affiliation
  • 法学院
  • dc.contributor.degree
  • 博士
  • dc.contributor.childdegree
  • 法学硕士
  • dc.contributor.degreeConferringInstitution
  • 西南政法大学
  • dc.identifier.year
  • 2017
  • dc.contributor.advisor
  • 潘金贵
  • dc.contributor.advisorAffiliation
  • 法学院
  • dc.language.iso
  • 中文
  • dc.subject
  • 庭审实质化;以审判为中心;庭审形式化;直接言词审理
  • dc.subject
  • Substantiation of Court Hearing;Centered on Trial;Formalization of Court Hearing;Direct Verbal Trial
  • dc.description.abstract
  • 刑事庭审实质化是针对我国实践中的庭审形式化现象提出的理论命题和改革目标。党的十八届四中全会通过的《关于全面推进依法治国若干重大问题的决定》,明确提出推进以审判为中心的诉讼制度改革,其主要目标之一是“保证庭审在查明事实、认定证据、保护诉权、公正裁判中发挥决定性作用”,即实现庭审的实质化。庭审实质化作为当前刑事司法改革的热点,其中很多问题值得深入研究。故此,本文立足于我国刑事庭审实践的现状,对庭审实质化进行话语解构,分析庭审非实质化现象和改革面临的问题,探索我国庭审实质化改革的可能进路。全文除引言外,共分五章,约21万字。第一章研究刑事庭审实质化的基础理论。主要包括三方面内容:一是对庭审实质化及相关术语的内涵进行解读。从字面含义看,可以将庭审实质化理解为庭审能够在展开的过程中有效发挥其功能;从内在要求看,庭审实质化理论与现代刑事诉讼制度理论相契合,以公正审判为核心价值追求,以程序运行的有效性为主要目标。庭审实质化与以审判为中心联系紧密,庭审实质化是以审判为中心的主要内容,两者属于从属关系;从我国当前的改革重心来看,两者的目标基本一致;从以审判为中心和庭审实质化的相互促进来看,两者具有明显的正相关关系,主要以庭审实质化的建设推动以审判为中心的发展为主。二是对庭审实质化的多维度阐释。“四个在法庭”是根据庭审实质化的内在要求作出的最直观表述,在不同语境下可以对这一术语展开多维度的阐释。作为一种理应追求的诉讼状态,庭审实质化除了指向理论上的理想模式外,实践中还存在不同程度和标准的区别;作为衡量制度构成的标准,庭审实质化对庭审制度体系提出一系列要求,并引导其完善;作为指引性的诉讼理念,庭审实质化突出强调庭审的独立价值,成为推动改革和实务持续向前发展的动力源泉。三是对庭审实质化正当性的分析。查证案件事实和保障辩方权利这两项主要功能是庭审实质化的动力根源,在此基础上还可以达到增强司法权威的效果。第二章研究我国庭审实质化改革的变迁进路。审视庭审实质化改革的变迁进路,可以发现历次改革的局限和未竟课题。目前为止,可以将我国庭审实质化改革分为三个发展阶段。第一阶段是以1996年《刑事诉讼法》修改为契机的控辩式庭审方式改革,试图通过发挥控辩双方在庭审中的作用实现庭审实质化。控辩式庭审方式改革减少了“先定后审”的现象,使庭审结构趋于合理,但没有改变控辩难以平等对抗、法庭难以言词审理、裁判难以源自庭审的常态。造成此次庭审实质化改革步履维艰的深层原因有:庭审方式变革的立法推动主义和大量配套制度的缺位,导致实践中庭审的对抗局面难以自发形成,也无法得到制度的保障;以打击犯罪为核心的价值追求和和忽视权利保障的改革逻辑,导致转型后的法庭审理仍然是治罪的一道工序。第二阶段是从2010年“两个证据规定”的出台到2012年《刑事诉讼法》再修改而形成的诉讼法制的进一步完善。证据法基本原则、非法证据排除规则、庭前会议制度的确立,以及证人、鉴定出庭制度、辩护制度、简易程序的改革,对于庭审实质化有比较明显的促进作用。修法后存在的阻碍庭审实质化的主要问题有:庭前会议效果不彰并存在实体审的风险;证人、鉴定人不出庭的情况没有明显好转;案卷笔录的问题没有得到重视;法庭证据调查程序不够合理和充实。第三阶段是正在进行的以审判为中心的诉讼制度改革,旨在通过确立审判的决定性地位和庭审实质化的改革重心来推进庭审实质化。庭审实质化的话语地位得到明显提升,迎来了发展的最佳时期,但维系公检法三机关的传统关系和强调惩罚犯罪的价值追求可能会对庭审实质化改革有所限制。正在进行的庭审实质化的地方性试点改革在检验技术和制度的操作性、形成指导性规则、积累可推广的改革经验等方面取得成效。但试点改革的方法本身存在一定局限性;试点效果不能代表刑事审判的普遍情况,也很难在短期内成为常态;试点案件仍然潜藏着庭审形式化的风险。第三章研究我国刑事庭审非实质化的现实样态。考察我国实践中庭审非实质化的现实样态,可以充分了解我国实践中庭审实质化的虚无现象和需要重点解决的问题。在已有实证研究成果的基础上,通过对个案庭审过程和判决内容进行分析和解读,可以展现实践中庭审过程和法庭裁判非实质化的典型样态,进而结合数据统计和访谈分析庭审形式化的成因。首先,庭审过程非实质化的现实样态可以总结为:对案件事实的调查不充分,即定案的主要证据没有经过充分的质证和辩论。主要表现在三个方面:控方过度批量举证,法庭调查的争点不突出;举证、质证方式过于僵化,对事实争点的质辩不充分;关键证人不出庭,无法展开实质性的人证调查。导致我国庭审过程非实质化的主要原因有:法庭调查以案卷笔录为主要对象;控辩双方力量不均衡;辩方质证权得不到有效保障;通过庭审解决问题的理念欠缺;庭审证据调查缺乏技术和制度的支持;案多人少压力下的效率追求。其次,法庭裁判实质化必须以庭审过程实质化为基础,如果庭审过程形式化,裁判就不可能以法庭审理的内容为根据,裁判就失去了正当性基础。除此之外,法庭裁判非实质化还表现在两个方面:从审判主体行使裁判权的情况来看,法庭裁判形式化表现为审理者未实质性行使裁判权;从法庭审理与裁判结论的关联性来看,庭审未对裁判结论的形成发挥实质性的影响。导致我国法庭裁判形式化的主要原因有:裁判决策的行政化;庭审与裁判联结被阻断;对证据相互印证的追求;审判的决定性地位缺失。第四章研究我国庭审实质化改革的思路与方法。我国一直存在的刑事庭审形式化现象和多年来步履维艰的庭审实质化改革预示着,庭审实质化改革是一项远未完成,仍需持续推进的艰巨任务,设计并坚持执行合理、务实的改革方案,至少可以保证我国庭审实质化持续向前发展。首先应清晰认识我国庭审实质化改革的主要推动力和现实阻力,主要推动力包括理论界的倡导和智力支持、实务界的努力以及官方决策的推动,实务界存在的等待思想、本位主义和畏难情绪成为改革的阻力。其次应当明确庭审实质化改革的整体思路。基于以往改革的经验和多方面因素制约的现实,我国只能渐进式地推进庭审实质化。就改革的起点而言,应当确立庭审实质化的基本理念,保证庭审实质化具有正向发展的观念指引;应当明确庭审实质化的底线标准,敦促和指引实务运作维系最基本的正当性;应当以庭审实质化的标准设定制度目标,逐步改良和完善制度体系。就改革的具体方向而言,需要将现实不完善的运作情形往理想状态推进,具体包括:从案卷笔录审理到直接言词审理;从形式化证明到严格证明;从控辩失衡到控辩平衡;从庭外裁判到庭上裁判。然后,应当明确庭审实质化改革需要正视的基本的策略性问题和技术性问题,应当正视的策略性问题有:重塑对庭审实质化及其改革的认识框架;官方决策从宣示性向实质性的转变;正视实务工作者的合理需求。应当正视的技术性问题有:正确认识和处理案卷笔录对庭审实质化的影响;重视庭审实质化的诉权保障功能。最后应当明确庭审实质化改革的方法。从立法推动到试点改革的逻辑转换,体现了改革者对于制度变革的谨慎态度,以试点改革为主,推进庭审实质化改革还需综合运用顶层设计、文本阐释、制度立法等具体方法。同时应注意对庭审实质化发展的实效进行评估,具体分为个体性评估和整体性评估,庭审实质化的发展情况主要依据整体性评估来判断。第五章研究我国庭审实质化改革的主要举措。遵循庭审实质化改革的基本思路,将庭审实质化改革的主要举措分为两部分。第一部分是完善庭审制度及相关证据制度,具体包括五方面内容:一是完善庭前会议制度。以有效整理争点和解决程序争议为目标,明确庭前会议的程序和实体准备功能,增加由控辩双方依诉权推动庭前会议召开的启动方式,明确庭前会议解决的具体事项、程序和效力,并防范庭前会议实体审。二是在确立直接言词原则的基础上,明确赋予被告人对质询问权,以诉权和裁判权相互制衡的方式推动证人出庭作证,并完善证人出庭作证制度和证据能力规则,以促进关键证人出庭的常态化和限制案卷笔录的使用。三是完善庭审证据调查制度。建立前置的争点整理程序,完善以交叉询问为主的人证调查程序,建立诱导性询问规则,规范法官释明权和庭外调查权的运用。四是建立法定化的庭审笔录制度,将其作为监督、制约庭审过程的材料。规范庭审笔录的内容及制作流程,明确庭审笔录的证据属性和证明效力,以及阅览和使用权限,同时实现庭审笔录制作的技术化和健全庭审录音录像制度。五是改革完善人民陪审员制度,推动公民实质参与刑事审判。完善陪审员制度的具体实施机制,针对部分案件建立多名陪审员参审的大合议庭制度。第二部分是改善庭审实质化的支持性要素,具体包括四方面内容:一是对合议庭裁判权行使的保障,以改良审判与侦查、公诉的关系和审判权运行机制为主。二是完善刑事审判分流机制,以完善刑事速裁程序为主,并加强与认罪认罚从宽制度的衔接。三是完善控辩平等参与的保障措施,以提高普通程序辩护率和辩护质量为主。四是提升诉讼主体的技术素养,根据庭审实质化的技术要求,提升法官驾驭调控庭审、当庭认证和裁判分析的能力,提升公诉人和律师庭前准备、法庭举证、质证和论辩的能力。
  • dc.description.abstract
  • Substantiation of the criminal court hearing is a theoretical proposition and the reform target which is put forward for the phenomenon of formalization of court hearing in the practice in China.The “Decision on Several Important Issues in the Overall Promotion of the Ruling of the Country by Law”,approved in the Fourth Plenary Session of the 18 th Central Committee of the Communist Party of China(CPC),has clearly stated to advance the litigation system reform centered on trial.One of its main objectives is to “ensure that the court hearing plays a decisive role in fact-finding,affirming evidence,protecting the right of appeal and just judgment”,that is to realize the substantiation of the court hearing.As the current hot issues of criminal justice reform,the reform of substantiation of the court hearing has ushered in the best period.Based on the status quo of China's criminal court hearing practice,this thesis discourses the deconstruction of the substantiation of the court hearing,analyzing the shortages and reform problems of substantiation of the court hearing.The purpose is to explore the possible way for the reform of substantiation of the court hearing in China.In addition to the introduction,this thesis is divided into five chapters.The first chapter studies the basic theory of the substantiation of the criminal court hearing,mainly including three aspects: first is to explain the substantiation of the court hearing and the meaning of the relevant terms.From the literal meaning,the substantiation of the court hearing can be understood that the court hearing can effectively plays its functions in the practicing process;from the intrinsic requirements,the theory of the substantiation of the court hearing accord with the theory of modern criminal procedure system,which all take impartial trial as the core value pursuit and take the effectiveness of the program operation as the main target.Referred to the substantiation of the court hearing,we have to talk about centering on trial.The substantiation of the court hearing is closely related to the trial-centered.The substantiation of the court hearing is the main content of centering on trial.the contents referred to the two belongs to the subordinate relationship.from the perspective of the focuses of China's current reform,the goals of the two are basically same;Judging from the mutual promotion of centering on trial and the substantiation of the court hearing,the two have a clear positive-correlation relationship,which all focus on the construction and promotion of the substantiation of the court hearing and the development of centering on trial.Second is the multidimensional interpretation for the substantiation of the court hearing.From the external function perspective can make this term imensional analysis.As an state of litigation which should be pursued,substantiation of court hearing not only points to ideal model theoretically,but also includes differences between different levels and standards in practice;as the measure standard of system constitution,substantiation of court hearing raises a series of requireme to trial system,and guide its perfection;as guiding litigation concept,substantiation of court hearing emphasize the independent value of court hearing prominently,and become the power source which move reform and practice forward.The third is the analysis of the legitimacy of the substantiation of the court hearing.The two main functions of verifying the facts of the case and guaranteeing the rights of the defense are the power sources of the substantiation of the court hearing.On this basis,it can also enhance the judicial authority.The second chapter researches the changing process in the reform of the substantiation of the court hearing in China.Looking at the changing process in the reform of the substantiation of the court hearing,we can find the limitations and unfinished tasks of all previous reforms.So far,China's reforms of the substantiation of the court hearing can be divided into three development stages.The first is the reform of accusing and defending trial mode based on the amend of “Criminal Procedure Law” in 1996,trying to realize the substantiation of the court hearing by playing the roles of both accusing and defending sides in the court trial.The reform of accusing and defending trial mode has reduced the phenomenon of “deciding on a verdict first and hearing later”,which made the structure of court trial more reasonable.But it has not changed the common states that the accuser and defender are difficult to confront equally;the court is hard to hear with speech;and judges are difficult to originate from the court hearing.The deep reasons which cause difficulties to the reform of the substantiation of the court hearing include: the absence of legislative impetus and a large number of supporting systems of the reform of trial mode leads to the confrontation situation of court hearing in practice difficult to form spontaneously,which can not get the protection of the system.The core value pursuit centering on fighting crimes and the reform logic of neglecting the rights protection result in that the reformed court hearing is still a process of punishing crimes.The second stage is the further improvement of procedure law system from the introduction of “The Regulation on Two Evidences” in 2010 to the modification of “Criminal Procedure Law” in 2012.The basic principles of the evidence act,exclusionary rule of illegally obtained evidence,the establishment of pre-court meeting system,the system of witnesses and identifier appearing in court,system of advocacy,and reform of summary procedure all obviously promote the substantiation of the court hearing.The main problems that impede the substantiation of the court hearing after amending the laws are as follows: the effects of pre-court meetings are not good with the risks in real trial;the situations of witnesses and identifiers not appearing in court have not been improved markedly;the problems of records and files have not been paid attention;the procedure of court evidence investigation is not reasonable and substantial enough.The third stage is the ongoing trial-centered reform of lawsuit system,which aims to promote the substantiation of the court hearing by establishing the decisive position of the trial and the reform focus of the substantiation of the court hearing.The status of the substantiation of the court hearing has been significantly improved,ushered in the best period of development.But to maintain the traditional relationship among the three public security organs and the value pursuit for focusing on punishing criminals may have limited the reform of the substantiation of the court hearing.The local pilot reform of the substantiation of the court hearing which is ongoing has achieved results in examining the operation of technique and system,forming guiding rules and the accumulating propagable reform experiences and other aspects.But the pilot reform method has its own limitations;the effect in pilots can not represent the general situation of criminal justice,which is difficult to become ordinary state in the short term;pilot cases still lurk the risks of formalization of court trial.The third chapter studies the real modality of China's criminal court hearing.Through investigating the real modality of China's criminal court hearing in practice,we can fully understand the shortages and key problems that need to be solved of the substantiation of the court hearing in practice in China.On the basis of existing achievements of the empirical researches,through the analysis and interpretations of the trial processes and contents of the individual cases,it can show the typical states of the formalization of trial processes and trial judgment in practice,and then combining the data statistics and interview to analyze the causes of the formalization of court hearing.First of all,the real modality of the formalization of the trial process can be summarized as follows: the investigations of the facts of the case are not sufficient,that the main evidences of deciding on a verdict have not been fully cross-examined and debated,Which mainly show in three aspects: the accusers put to proofs excessively,and the issues of court investigation are not prominent;the way of putting to proof and cross-examination is too rigid,and the debate for fact issue is not enough;the key witness does not appear in court,resulting in substantive investigation of the witnesses can not be carried out.The main reasons for the formalization of the trial process in China are as follows: the court investigations take records and files as the main objects;the power of the accuser and the defense is not balanced;the right of cross-examination of defense can not be effectively protected;the ideas to solve problems through court hearing is absent;lack of technical and institutional support for the investigation of evidence in court hearing;pursue efficiency under the pressure of more cases but less people.Secondly,the substantiation of the court hearing must be based on the substantiation of the trial process.If the trial process is formalized,the judge can not take the contents of the court trial as basis.Thus,the judgment will lose the basis of legitimacy.In addition,the formalization of court adjudication also show in two aspects: from the situation of trial subject performing jurisdiction,the formalization of the court judgment is shown as that the judges do not perform the jurisdiction substantively;from the relevance of court adjudication and judgment decisions,the court hearing has not played substantive impacts on the formation of the judgment decisions.The main reasons leading to the formalization of the Chinese court judgment are: the administration of judgment decision;the connection between the court hearing and the judgment has been blocked;the pursuit of mutual confirmation of evidences;the decisive position of the judgment is missing.The fourth chapter studies the ideas and methods of the reform of the substantiation of the court hearing in China.The formalized phenomenon of criminal trial which keeps existing in China and difficult reforms of the substantiation of the court hearing for many years indicate that the substantive reform of the trial is an arduous task that is still far from accomplished and needs to be continuously advanced.Designing and sticking to implement reasonable and pragmatic reform plans can ensure that the substantiation of the court hearing in China continues to move forward at least.Based on the previous reform experiences and the reality restricted by many factors,China can only gradually advance the substantiation of the court hearing.For the starting point of the reform,we should establish the basic concept for the substantiation of the court hearing to ensure it to be guided by the concepts of positive development;we should clear bottom-line standards for the substantiation of the court hearing,to urge and guide the practical operations to maintain the most basic legitimacy;we should set system goals according to the standards of the substantiation of the court hearing,and gradually improve and perfect the system.In terms of the specific direction of reform,it is necessary to push the imperfect operations in the reality to the ideal state,which includes: from hearing by file-transcripts to direct verbal trials;from formalized proof to rigorous proof,from the imbalance between the accuser and defender to the balanced accusation and defense,from the judgment out of court to the judgment on the court.Correct understanding and handling with the impacts of the file-transcripts on the substantiation of the court hearing,as well as attaching the importance of litigation protection function of the substantiation of the court hearing,are the basic problems which need to be faced by the reform of the substantiation of the court hearing.From the legislative promotion to the pilot reform,the logic transformation reflects the reformers' cautious attitude to the system reform.In addition to the main method of the pilot reform,promote the reform of the substantiation of the court trial also needs to comprehensively apply specific methods,such as top-level design,text interpretation and system legislation.At the same time,we should pay attention to assess the actual effect of the substantive development of the court trial,including individual assessment and holistic assessment.The development situations of the substantiation of the court hearing are judged mainly depending on the overall assessment.The fifth chapter researches the main measures of the reform of the substantiation of the court hearing in China.Following the basic idea of the reform of the substantiation of the court hearing,the main measures of the reform can be divided into two parts.The first part is to improve the court hearing system and related evidence system,specifically including four aspects.First,improve the pre-court meeting system.Take effectively organizing disputes and resolving procedural disputes as the goal,to clarify the procedures and physical preparation functions of pre-court meetings.Increase starting mode of the right of action promoting the convening of the pre-court meetings,clearing specific issues,procedures and effectiveness solved in pre-court meeting,and preventing pre-court meeting turning into substantive hearing.Secondly,on the basis of establishing the principle of direct speech,the criminal defendant should be given the right of confrontation and inquiry.Promote witness to present at court with the mode of check and balance between the right of appeal and jurisdiction,and perfect the system of witness appearing in court and the ability and rules of evidence,to promote the normalization of witness appearing in court and to restrict the use of file-transcripts.The third is to improve the evidence investigation system of court hearing.Establish pre-dispute arranging procedures,improving the witness investigation procedures focused on the cross-examination;establish induced inquiry rules,standardizing the application of judges' interpretation right and the power of investigation outside the court.Fourth is to establish a statutory record system on court hearing,which will be taken as the material to supervise and control the trial process.Standardize the contents and making process of trial file-transcriptions,clarifying the evidence attributes and the proving validity of the trial file-transcripts,as well as the right of reading and using.Meanwhile,realize the technicalization of trial file-transcripts production and perfect video and audio recording system of court hearing.The second part is to improve the supporting factors of the substantiation of the court hearing,including four aspects.First is to protect the judicial power performing in collegiate bench,which needs to focus on improving the relationships between judgment and investigation and public prosecution and operating mechanism of judicial power.The second is to improve the procedural diversion mechanism which focuses on perfecting the criminal quick judging procedures and lenient system of pleading guilty.Third is n to perfect the safeguard measures for the equal participation of the accuser and the defender,taking improving the defending rate and the defending quality of the ordinary procedure.Fourth is to enhance the technical literacy of the subjects of litigation.Enhance the judge' abilities to preside over,command,control and regulate the court hearing and the ability of authentication in the court according to the technical requirements of the substantiation of the court hearing;improve the abilities of pretrial preparation,putting to proof in the court,cross-examination and debating of the public prosecutor and lawyers.
  • dc.subject.discipline
  • D925.2
  • dc.date.issued
  • 2017-03-11
回到顶部