论检察官的自由裁量权——兼析起诉便宜原则的确立及其适用

研究检察官的自由裁量权是为了探寻检察官决定起诉或不起诉的正当性及其适用原则。起诉法定原则排斥检察官有起诉与否的自由裁量权 ,该项原则的显在不足导引出赋予检察官以自由裁量权的起诉便宜原则。起诉便宜原则在一国刑事诉讼中的地位决定检察官行使自由裁量权的方式和范围。除美国检察官拥有几乎不受控制的自由裁量权外 ,大陆法系国家和我国刑诉法都设立了防止检察官滥用自由裁量权的一定机制     

浅谈检察官起诉裁量权及其完善

在刑事诉讼中,各国对检察官起诉裁量权的规定各有特点.我国对检察官起诉裁量权的范围的确定以及对起诉裁量权的制约还存在一些不足,应在比较分析和借鉴国外有益经验的基础上,通过扩大检察官起诉裁量权和完善相应的制约机制以确保起诉裁量权的有效行使.     

美国起诉裁量权研究

检察官的起诉裁量权是美国刑事司法系统中的重要制度,其在起诉便宜主义指导之下有一套自洽均衡的运行体系。着重分析美国起诉裁量权运用过程中应予考虑的各种因素,以及其运用构造,政策争论,宪法控制几个重要问题,希望对深入了解和借鉴美国的起诉裁量权有所裨益。     

检察机关自由裁量权问题研究

在刑事诉讼中,现代各国普遍都赋予检察机关(检察官)自由裁量权.比较中外检察机关自由裁量权模式之异同,完善我国检察机关(检察官)自由裁量权,在于适当扩大适用范围和设置必要程序.     

检察官自由裁量权论纲

对于什么是检察官自由裁量权,学界尚未达成统一的认识。有的将检察官自由裁量权等同于起诉裁量权,有的将检察官的刑事立案与撤案权也列入检察官自由裁量权的范畴。本文在厘清一系列错误观点的基础上,对检察官自由裁量权的内涵、特征、价值、产生及发展趋势、行使原则、规范与制约等问题进行了理性探讨。     

自由裁量权问题研究检察机关

在刑事诉讼中,现代各国普遍都赋予检察机关(检察官)自由裁量权。比较中外检察机关自由裁量权模式之异同,完善我国检察机关(检察官)自由裁量权,在于适当扩大适用范围和设置必要程序。     

检察官自由裁量权和不起诉裁量权的内涵及特征

检察官的自由裁量权内容极其广泛,贯穿于整个刑事诉讼之中.不起诉裁量权是自由裁量权重要组成部分之一,有效行使检察官的不起诉裁量权对保证司法公正、节约司法资源、提高诉讼效率等具有深刻的意义.     

论价值选择维度中的检察官追诉裁量权

检察官追诉裁量权的产生与发展是刑罚本质观与诉讼价值观历史嬗变的产物。在刑罚报应论占统治地位的年代 ,起诉法定主义是刑事追诉的惟一原则。随着效率因素的不断被强调 ,现代各国的刑事诉讼立法大多在明确规定起诉条件的同时 ,增加了贯彻起诉便宜主义的制度。我国现行刑事诉讼法在设计追诉原则时也充分注意了与国际趋势接轨 ,但在检察官追诉裁量权的运用方面依然受到了过多的限制 ,应从提高公诉运行机制效率的层面上对立法进行完善。     

不起诉裁量权的产生依据及价值分析

不起诉裁量权的建立是以起诉便宜主义原则为基础的.在刑事诉讼中,起诉法定主义模式和起诉便宜主义模式是两种典型的诉讼模式.①起诉法定主义是一种严格规则主义,要求起诉活动必须严格按照法律规定进行,凡是符合起诉条件的案件必须提起公诉,检察机关不得有任何裁量余地,起诉法定主义模式是有罪必罚的报应刑的刑罚思想在刑事诉讼程序上的具体体现,由于这种模式能够保证法律适用的平等性和公平性,在19世纪中期以前曾被许多国家广泛采用.在严格的起诉法定主义原则的指导下,检察官并没有真正意义上的自由裁量权,只是严格遵循法律之规定对案件作出起诉与否的处理决定.     

美国检察官及其自由裁量权

美国检察官主要在三个方面行使自由裁量权:决定起诉、决定撤诉和诉辩交易。美国80%的刑事案件都是通过诉辩交易终结的。与检察官自由裁量权相应的管理策略包括充分起诉模式、系统效率模式和充分审判模式,优先起诉也是一种管理策略。检察官自由裁量的权限很大,问题很多,然而,尚无法律对检察官的自由裁量权加以限制或否定,这就说明美国检察官的自由裁量权还在可以接受的范围内。     

Discretion at the Pre-Trial Stage: A Comparative Study

This study aims to explore the discretion of the police and prosecutors during the pre-trial stage based on six systems of criminal justice: England and Wales, the United States, France, Germany, Japan, and South Korea. In criminal proceedings, discretion plays a significant role in supplementing as statutes cannot provide for every circumstance. In particular, at the pre-trial stage, public prosecutors can conclude their cases by exercising considerable discretion. Such discretion differs depending on the jurisdiction. The differences demonstrate distinctive prosecutorial roles. Based upon these findings, I propose that in general, the public prosecution service plays a filtering role. Unlike other jurisdictions, in Korea the prosecutors act as monopolists. However, justice cannot be achieved by the monopoly of one legal actor in the criminal proceedings.     

论犯罪控制视野中的刑事诉讼监督

犯罪控制并非程序正义的对立面,其目的之一即是对公民人权的保障。但是,犯罪控制的＂度＂把握不好就会有害于程序正义的实现。因此,有必要对犯罪控制进行＂度＂的控制,刑事诉讼监督即为方式之一,其关注点是人权与正义。新时期实施刑事诉讼监督,应坚持宽严相济刑事政策,吸取情境预防的经验,理顺法律监督内外部关系。     

Well-informed? Well Represented? Well Nigh Powerless? Victims and Prosecutorial Decision-making

This article provides a brief overview of the ways in which prosecutors must engage with victims in the course of their work in criminal proceedings and what formal roles victims can assume in criminal proceedings. Besides exploring what rights victims have per se in criminal proceedings, analysis is provided as to what it means to be an additional prosecutor or a private prosecutor in several European criminal justice systems. A brief analysis of the effects these rights and the use of prosecutorial discretion has on victims is provided.     

Prosecutorial Discretion: An Examination of Substantial Assistance Departures in Federal Crack‐Cocaine and Powder‐Cocaine Cases

Recently there has been a call for research that explores decision‐making at stages prior to sentencing in the criminal justice process. Particularly research is needed under a determinate sentencing system where judicial dispositions are usually restricted by guidelines, which increases the importance of earlier decision‐making stages. As an answer to this call, and in an attempt to build on currents studies on the effects of departures as an intervening mechanism, and a source of unwarranted disparity, this study explores federal sentencing data on offenders convicted of crack‐cocaine and powder‐cocaine offenses. Although decision‐making of all criminal justice actors generally, and prosecutors specifically, has been the subject of much research, studies have yet to resolve the nature and outcome of their “autonomous” discretion. This autonomy becomes especially salient regarding prosecutorial decisions for substantial assistance departures. In deciding who receives a substantial assistance departure, the prosecutor has carte blanche power.     

‘No,buddy, I will not speak to the press – I am working!’: criminal justice and the interprofessional dynamics of communication production in the Chilean Public Prosecutorial Office

This article analyses the interprofessional dynamics of communication production in the criminal justice system. Through 26 in-depth interviews, we investigate the production of media information on prosecutorial work in Chile, tracking the relationships between internal communication agents, prosecutors, and external legal journalists. Previous scholarship has shown the success of police organizations in defining the content of crime communication based on asymmetrical power relations with the media. By contrast, our study reveals that legal journalists can bypass attempts to control the flow of information from the prosecutorial office and impose extra-organizational goals. Lawyers regularly dismiss the work of journalists, particularly those working as strategic communication advisors with prosecutors, but the asymmetrical relationship between the criminal justice agency and the media plays in favour of external legal journalists. Our article considers several explanations for this configuration, including interprofessional values, transactional relationships between journalists and prosecutors, and local legal culture.     

行政公益诉讼中检察介入行政裁量权研究

行政自由裁量权的司法控制是法治实践中的难题,行政公益诉讼制度确立后,为检察权介入行政裁量权从而加强对其监控提供了契机,这是由公益的柔性化、行政与公益的复杂关系、公益诉讼中检察监督的深度、公益诉讼中诉权的广延性所决定的。目前检察机关可介入行政公益中的判断裁量权、选择裁量权、许可和处罚裁量权、行政处置裁量权、行政立法裁量权等。具体而言,检察机关可通过使行政裁量权得到规劝、使行政裁量权得到合理解释、使行政裁量权充实裁量依据、使行政裁量权得到合理建议、使行政裁量权得到拓展等路径介入。     

暂缓起诉制度在中国的展开——以能动检察为背景的分析

检察机关能动地运用检察权,可以适应社会情势的不断变化,更好地解决刑事纠纷,实现实质的公平正义。暂缓起诉制度作为能动检察的一种表现形式,在基本目的和自由裁量权方面,和能动检察有着相当的耦合。目的刑论和起诉便宜主义是暂缓起诉制度的正当基础。总结司法实践,可以从适用条件和附加条件两方面对中国的暂缓起诉制度加以构建。为了防范权力滥用,有必要从决定程序和救济程序的角度对暂缓起诉制度加以制约。     

我国侦查权的程序性控制

我国现有的侦查权程序性控制表现为以内部自律的科层制控制为主、外部他律的分权式控制为辅的基本制度格局。从制度构造的表象看,传统的线性分工模式、功利导向的控制方式和不彻底的程序性救济,暴露了侦查权程序性控制体系的残缺和现有制度的羸弱。在社会文化和制度环境的作用下,长期的科层制控制和检察监督所形成的固化观念,使我国侦查权的程序性控制陷入了理念上的“内卷化”,并逐步消解着以现有制度为对象而进行的种种机制性改良尝试。立足于未来发展,我国侦查权程序性控制的制度远景应该是建立合乎我国国情的司法审查模式,使侦查权的控制走向彻底的法治化和专业化。在既有的法律框架下,侦查权程序性控制的制度近景则是以非法证据排除规则为后盾,通过与检察监督的衔接,建立审前程序中以检察机关为中心、审判程序中以法院为中心的二阶层控制模式;并通过与案例指导、国家赔偿、司法建议等制度的配套运行,形成制度合力,倒逼侦查方式和技术的改善,进而促进制度远景目标的实现。     

刑事自由裁量权与刑法基本原则关系研究

刑法基本原则不但是制定、解释和适用刑法的准则,而且体现了刑法的基本精神。刑事自由裁量权是刑法适用过程中普遍存在的一种权力。罪刑法定原则并不排斥刑事自由裁量权,罪刑法定原则认可以严格规则为主、以自由裁量为补充的立法模式。自由裁量权对适用刑法人人平等原则有一定的冲击,所谓的适用刑法人人平等实际上是包括了自由裁量因素在内的相对意义的人人平等。罪责刑相适应原则,在本质上确认法官的刑事自由裁量权,罪责刑相适应原则与法官的自由裁量权具相辅相成性。     

BLINDFOLDED JUSTICE LED BY AN INVISIBLE HAND: Criminal Justice as a Variable of Exchange Transactions

The article argues that instead of viewing the criminal justice process as determined by judicial or prosecutorial discretion, it should be seen as the outcome of exchange transactions that are designed to adjust resource constraints between case inflows and outflows. These exchanges, over which judges and prosecutors have only little control in the aggregate, generate changes in the criminal justice system in an unplanned or "invisible hand" fashion. They alter the sentence level, affect the standard of proof and the rules of evidence, and transform the function of trials. Several of the analytical conclusions are confirmed by an empirical investigation.