侦查羁押期限重新计算相关问题研究——以职务犯罪侦查羁押期限重新计算为例

我国《刑事诉讼法》第一百二十八条关于侦查羁押期限的重新计算问题，在司法实践中一般被称为重新计算侦查羁押期限。法律及相关司法解释对这一问题采取原则性规定，对该程序的性质、操作方法、流程等到目前为止尚没有直接的文字规定。在司法实践中，存在侦查机关因延长羁押期限不符合条件，多次以发现重要罪行（实则为犯罪嫌疑或一般罪行）为由，多次重新计算，     

刑事羁押期限:立法的缺陷及其救济

科学设计刑事羁押期限应坚持谦抑原则。坚持刑事羁押的谦抑原则、缩减羁押期限是法制宽容精神的体现 ,是无罪推定原则的必然要求 ,是保证刑罚及时性和刑罚效果的需要 ,体现了对犯罪嫌疑人和被告程序主体地位的尊重。从立法上看 ,我国刑事羁押期限制度有诸多缺陷 :规定的依附性和不完整性 ;羁押期限较长 ;羁押期限与涉嫌犯罪的非比例性 ;决定羁押期限延长程序的不公开 ;重新计算羁押期限的立法过于原则等等。建议将羁押期限的立法规定独立开来 ,同时适当缩减拘留、审查起诉和审判的期限 ,废除补充侦查制度 ,明确规定重新计算羁押期限的法定情形 ,严格控制对羁押期限的延长。     

论刑事拘留羁押期限及其监督程序的改革与完善

区分界定拘留与羁押的属性,分析我国法律体系中对于刑事拘留羁押期限的规定;本文指出我国现行刑事拘留羁押期限及其监督程序的主要缺陷,超期羁押现象泛化、拘留的适用缺乏监督与救济、拘留羁押期限与侦查羁押期限关系不明执行不一;提出改革完善刑事拘留羁押制度的几点建议,改革拘留羁押期限现行法律,并严格追究超期限超范围羁押的法律责任,建立非法拘留羁押救济程序,完善对非法拘留羁押的监督机制,拘留羁押期限与侦查羁押期限实现分离。     

严格换押制度 防止超期羁押

换押是指公、检、法机关或部门，在办理刑事案件过程中，需要将案件移送其他机关或部门，或者需要延长羁押期限时，依据有关法律的规定，制作、移送法律文书，并将有关手续及时送达羁押场所登记的一种制度。现行的换押制度包括两项内容：一是制作《换押证》、《延长羁押期...     

重新计算侦查羁押期限法律适用研究

针对重新计算侦查羁押期限法律规定不明、司法解释缺乏的现状,笔者依据刑诉法的立法精神和有关规定,对重新计算侦查羁押期限法律适用中存在的五个问题,即侦查羁押期限的起算、侦查羁押期限的范围、何为“另有重要罪行”、何为“发现”和“发现之日”以及不同侦查机关、部门之间能否重新计算侦查羁押期限等进行了详尽研究。     

审批延长侦查羁押期限中的问题及对策

审查批准和决定延长侦查羁押期限，是《刑事诉讼法》赋予检察机关对侦查活动实施监督的重要措施之一。当前在提请批准延长侦查羁押期限案件程序上和实体上均存在一些问题。为此要严格执行审查批准和决定延长侦查羁押期限的法定条件，以杜绝超期提请批准延长侦查羁押期限的现象。     

检察机关双向说理工作的调查分析——以浙江省绍兴市检察院实践为视角

双向说理是指公安、检察机关在审查逮捕、审查起诉、捕后变更强制措施、延长侦查羁押期限等工作中,对所作出的决定分别向对方说明理由的制度。2011年,浙江省绍兴市检察院联合绍兴市公安局制定出台了《关于加强公安、检察机关双向说理工作的意见》,对双向说理的范围、程序、方法和重点等作出了详细规定。为全面了解双向说理工作的     

侦查中重新计算羁押期限问题研究

侦查期间重新计算羁押期限涉及的另有重要罪行应当以一定的法定刑作为衡量的依据;侦查期间不应包括补充侦查期间;重新计算羁押期限后可以在此基础上依法延长羁押期限;重新计算羁押期限应当从有权机关作出决定之日或者前一个羁押期限届满之日起计算;补充侦查期间不能使用原侦查期间未曾使用的羁押期限;侦查中改变管辖的案件能否重新计算羁押期限应当具体问题具体分析;重新计算羁押期限的案件,检察机关认为有错误的,可以作出撤销的决定;重新计算侦查羁押期限有错误的也要根据具体情况承担相应的赔偿责任.     

重新计算侦查羁押期限探究

重新计算侦查羁押期限探究●杨国祥刑诉法第一百二十四条规定，对犯罪嫌疑人逮捕后的侦查羁押期限不得超过二个月。第一百二十八条规定，在侦查期间，发现犯罪嫌疑人另有重要罪行的，自发现之日起依照本法第一百二十四条的规定重新计算侦查羁押期限。这些规定是保证办案工...     

建立和完善超期羁押监督机制

超期羁押是指办案机关和监管机关超过法定羁押期限,违法羁押犯罪嫌疑人、被告人的行为,存在于刑事拘留、侦查、起诉、审判的各个阶段。 按照有关规定,人民检察院监所检察部门担负着对刑事诉讼羁押期限进行监督的重要职责。怎样才能有效地防止超期羁押的出现,是当前监所检察     

试论隐性超期羁押的危害及其控制

超期羁押是当前刑事司法实践一大顽疾,不仅严重侵犯被羁押者的合法权益,给其亲属造成不必要的负担和痛苦,且妨碍了刑事诉讼活动的正常进行.超期羁押既有表面上即明显超出法定期限的显性超期,也有以形式上合法掩饰实质上不合法的隐性超期.针对司法实践中尚不为人们所重视的"隐性超期羁押"问题,从分析其表现、危害及成因入手,试着探求解决的对策,以期对从根本上预防和纠正此类现象有所裨益.     

关于建立我国羁押候审制度的法律构想--从我国的超期羁押清理谈起

我国正在进行的超期羁押清理工作为我国现行羁押体制敲响了警钟。面对目前比较突出的无节制羁押、超期羁押以及羁押过程中人权虚化等现象 ,我国应当按照现代诉讼理念的要求 ,从控制犯罪和保障人权相结合的角度对审前羁押予以规制。制度的构建应当从羁押决定中的司法审查、羁押与逮捕严格分离、保障被羁押者的权利几个基本方面着手 ,具体通过羁押决定、羁押理由、羁押期限以及羁押复查制度来完成     

隐性超期羁押的法律规制研究

隐性超期羁押是超期羁押的一种,是指采用违法的手段,规避刑事诉讼法的办案期限,以形式上的不超期掩盖实质的超期羁押.其产生的原因有主观和客观两个方面.纠改隐性超期羁押的对策是:树立现代法治社会的执法理念;修改法律,建章立制;强化检察监督等.     

Reconceptualising the Custody Threshold in England and Wales

The custody threshold provision in England and Wales was intended to operate as a limit on the use of custodial sentences, preserving what is the system’s most severe sanction for the most serious offences. However over the past few decades it has become apparent that the custody threshold is failing. Academics have discussed the reasons for this failure, which has seen the prison population double in space of a quarter of a century. This piece explores the custody threshold in the context of the use of custody in other Western European jurisdictions. It examines the courts’ response to the provision and various judicial attempts to amplify Parliament’s language. The authors then consider the academic critiques of the custody threshold provision, analysing the extent to which said criticism can be seen as a solution to the problem, before offering a new critique of their own. Finally, in a move towards more a more principled approach to the custody threshold, the piece offers a solution which would, it is argued, make the provision more effective and more theoretically sound.     

证据保管链制度研究

证据保管链制度要求建立自侦查阶段收集证据至审判阶段将证据提交法庭的完整记录体系;除少数例外情形,所有接触证据的人员都必须出庭作证。这一制度对规范侦查、起诉人员收集、运输、保管证据等行为,协助法官和辩护方审查判断证据的真伪,都具有极为重要的意义。我国刑事诉讼法只要求对证据的收集进行记录,而不要求对证据的运输、保管、鉴定等也进行记录,更不要求接触证据的人员出庭作证;这对保障实物证据的证明力极为不利。我国在未来立法时有必要借鉴域外经验,建立系统的证据保管链制度。     

CHILD CUSTODY EVALUATIONS: THE NEED FOR SYSTEMS‐LEVEL OUTCOME ASSESSMENTS*

Child custody evaluations need to be studied systemically as a human service system. There is little research on the history, caseload dynamics, economics, delivery systems, or impact of custody evaluations. This article identifies five systems‐level questions about custody evaluations and examines one, outcomes assessment, in detail by developing seven outcome hypotheses. The article concludes that such research could improve the practice and use of child custody evaluations.     

Family Law,Parents with Disabilities,and the Americans with Disabilities Act

Parents with disabilities contend with bias within the family law system, often threatening their custody and visitation rights. The overarching goal of this article is to explore the experiences of parents with disabilities involved in custody and visitation disputes and the application of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) in these cases. This article begins with an overview of parents with disabilities and their interactions with the family law system. Next, the article examines the ADA and its applicability to custody and visitation disputes. Finally, the article offers thoughts about strategies that can be utilized by attorneys to ensure that the rights of parents with disabilities are protected.     

Judging the Best Interests of the Child: Judges' Accounts of the Tender Years Doctrine

With dramatic changes in family life over the last several decades, child custody law has shifted from a maternal preference to a more egalitarian standard, the best interests of the child. Despite this change in the law, scholars have debated whether gender continues to play a role in the resolution of custody disputes. Drawing on feminist legal scholarship and sociolegal research on judges, I assess the current debates over gender and custody by examining the accounts of judges who frequently adjudicate custody cases. I conduct in-depth, face-to-face interviews with twenty-five trial court judges in Indiana and investigate judges' accounts about whether they continue to use the tender years doctrine in custody disputes, even though the custody statute is explicitly gender-neutral. Then, I assess several competing explanations of the variation across judges' accounts, including the judges' gender role attitudes, gender, age, and political party affiliation. In exploratory analyses, I also examine the contested custody rulings of a subset of nine judges to assess whether judges' accounts are congruent with their actual custody decisions. I discuss the implications of these findings in light of feminist legal scholarship as well as empirical research on child custody adjudication.     

THE BENEFITS AND RISKS OF CHILD CUSTODY EVALUATORS MAKING RECOMMENDATIONS TO THE COURT:

In their article, Tippins and Wittmann articulate a strong position against custody evaluators making specific custody recommendations to the court. This response will focus on my thoughts about their concepts and my belief that recommendations can be useful and appropriate some of the time, even though there may be significant problems with certain types of recommendations and problems with some evaluators.