公诉权下的刑事和解

一、公诉权与刑事和解的相容性公诉权,是指国家赋予检察机关代表国家提起诉讼,要求法院予以审判,使国家刑罚权得以实现的重要权力。一般来说,公诉是追究犯罪人刑事责任的,而刑事和解则是以和解的方式来解决刑事案件,二者好像不相容。实际上,公诉权不仅与刑事和解相容,而且公诉制度为刑事和解提供了很好的载体。(一)公诉与刑事和解在价值取向上的契合。一般来说,公诉就是追究犯罪人的刑事责任,通过惩罚犯罪来保护社会,而从宏观上讲,惩罚犯罪首先就是为了保护被害人的利益。通常观念,国家对被害人的保护已融入到对犯罪的惩罚和保护社会上。刑…     

刑事被害人与刑事司法:一个历史的考察

在刑事司法体中,被害人先后经历了原始被害人中心、被害人隐形与被害人重新复兴三个时期。在这三个时期中,被害人在刑事领域中的地位经历了从辉煌到失落在再到重新回归的变化。现代刑事政策运动的客观趋势是将保护受害人放在首位,而不是把惩罚犯罪人放在首位。以恢复性司法理念为主导的被害人救助、被害人权利保护、刑事和解等运动正是这种趋势的体现。我国应该顺应这种趋势,切实的加强对刑事被害人的救助与权利保护,确立犯罪人和被害人同等的地位,建立国家—犯罪人—被害人三位一体的刑事立法与司法制度。     

论刑事和解的公正性

刑事和解平衡了被害人、加害人与国家刑罚权的关系,有利于报应公正和犯罪预防和实现,具有正当性。对犯罪人的惩罚应当参考对被害人的实际损害,应当强调刑事和解对犯罪行为人的人格改造以及对被害人的精神康复,刑事和解应当具有公平性。通过建立犯罪被害人国家补偿制度,保障刑事和解的平等性。     

刑事和解制度的理论概述

刑事和解制度是世界现代司法实践过程中所产生的新的司法模式,其改变了传统刑事司法观念,在重新构建刑事法律关系时将被害人融入其中。刑事和解制度的适用蕴涵着恢复性司法的价值理念,使刑法在起到惩罚犯罪人作用的同时保障了被害人的利益,修复了犯罪人与被害人之间的关系,为犯罪人将来重新回归社会提供了有利条件。     

论我国刑事和解制度的构建

刑事和解是一种让被害人与犯罪人直接对话,恢复双方关系,犯罪人可以免于或减轻刑事处罚的制度。在我国构建刑事和解制度首先要转变传统观念上的对犯罪的理解,把犯罪首先当做是对个人的侵害,提高被害人的地位,尊重被害人的选择,对符合条件的案件进行刑事和解,从而达到节约国家司法资源、抚慰被害人、回归犯罪人,构建和谐社会的目的。     

被害人权利保护与恢复性司法

以恢复性司法为制度进路,追求刑事被害人权利保护这一事关实质正义实现的法治目标。对犯罪人的制裁更多地涉及法律的一般性与普遍性,因此偏重于追求形式正义;对被害人权利的弥补、修复、保护更多地涉及生活中实际、具体的事件之合理性与被害人个别处遇,因此偏重于追求实质正义。在传统刑事司法制度中,被害人的权利长期遭受不应有的忽视,而在欧美获得蓬勃发展的恢复性司法制度则针对不同案件、不同犯罪人和被害人开展了形式多样的恢复性司法计划,为我国惩治犯罪人、保护被害人与实现个案中的实质正义提供了良好的理论资源与制度进路。     

构建刑事和解制度探讨

刑事和解应适用于刑事诉讼的各个阶段,原则上由人民调解委员会主持,检察机关参与到和解的各个过程,且应与社区矫正相对接,从而实现犯罪人和被害人的共同正义。     

对未成年犯罪引用刑事和解制度必要性初探

在我国,刑事和解观念逐渐融入我国宽严相济的刑事政策,并在司法机关的监督下谨慎推行。我国对犯罪未成年人追究刑事责任,实行教育、感化、挽救的方针,坚持教育为主,惩罚为辅的原则。因此,对于未成年人犯罪引入刑事和解制度存在其合理性、必要性。未成年人犯罪刑事和解制度有利于恢复被害人利益和未成年犯罪人重返社会.     

对办理当事人达成和解刑事案件的认识与思考

刑事和解，主要是指在犯罪发生后，通过被害人与犯罪人达成损害赔偿的和解协议，再由司法机关予以认可并作为对犯罪人刑事处罚的依据，从而通过加强对被害人的保护，平衡被害人、犯罪嫌疑人或被告人、社会三方的经济利益。它的和解对象是刑事案件中的当事人．在刑事诉讼中尊重当事人的意思自由，突出了被害人的地位和诉权的保障．最终达到社会关系的修复。它是对“宽严相济”刑事政策精神实质的一种贯彻落实．不但有助于修复被破坏的社会关系和秩序，     

市民社会基本精神与刑事和解正当性分析

刑事和解是指在犯罪发生后,让犯罪人与被害人及其支持者会聚在一起。在协调人的主持下共同讨论犯罪解决方案的一种恢复性程序。会议的通常结果是达成一份犯罪人以某种方式赔偿被害人的协议,同时也希望犯罪人能从与被害人的会见中受益。其目的是恢复犯罪人所破坏的社会关系,弥补被害人所受到的伤害,使犯罪人改过自新、复归社会。在全球法律文化交流加速和国内和谐社会建设升温的背景下,刑事和解制度也开始进人我国刑事法学     

我国刑事和解的正当性解构

刑事和解为近年来我国实践部门探索的解决刑事案件的新途径。刑事和解在我国的适用,具有正当性基础,具体表现在:构建和谐社会理论和宽严相济为刑事和解正当性提供了理论依据和政策基础,刑事和解有助于和谐社会的构建,有利于贯彻宽严相济刑事司法政策;刑事和解是我国司法现实的需要,是实现利益兼得、有效化解矛盾、解决司法资源紧缺问题的重要途径,也是联合国所提倡的,各国通行的解决刑事纠纷的方式之一;刑事和解与传统刑事司法理论并不相悖,体现了解决刑事案件方式的多元化和价值追求的多元化。     

Where Do They Belong? Giving Victims a Place in the Criminal Justice Process

Historically, victims once had an active participatory role in the criminal justice process and were responsible for not only initiating but also for prosecuting offenders. In common law countries, victims were gradually sidelined and by the 20th century, their role was reduced to that of a witness to a crime against the state. The exclusion of victims from the criminal justice process is a major source of dissatisfaction for victims as many of them want to participate in the criminal justice process. This has fuelled initiatives with restorative justice that claim to more fully include victims than conventional criminal justice. This paper examines three different approaches found in the literature on how to let victims participate. One view is that victims should leave the criminal justice system and that criminal justice should be replaced by alternative, restorative justice schemes in which victims are granted full recognition and respect for their dignity. A second approach is to integrate restorative practices such as victim-offender mediation in the criminal justice process. The third approach is to integrate victim participation and respect (so-called restorative values) in the criminal justice system. These three approaches are discussed and compared with one another. The paper closes with recommendations for criminal law reform.     

论刑事被害人的诉讼地位、诉讼权利及其保障

被害人在刑事诉讼中的地位是刑事诉讼的重要问题 ,保护被害人 ,给予其恰如其份的诉讼地位和诉讼权利成为追求司法公正的重要组成部分。我国刑事诉讼法对被害人的诉讼地位和诉讼权利的重视应当肯定 ,但是在保护受害人合法权益方面仍有一些不周到之处 ,应当采取相应措施加以完善。     

Participants' Attitudes in the Utah Juvenile Victim‐Offender Mediation Program

This paper describes an archival evaluation of the Juvenile Court Victim‐Offender Mediation Program (VOMP) of the Utah State Courts in Salt Lake City. From 1997 to 2000, 147 victims and 330 offenders reported their attitudes towards their experiences in VOMP. Although victims were more satisfied than offenders for some outcomes, all participants reported exceptionally high satisfaction. These promising results are consistent with other published studies on the effectiveness of VOMP and other forms of restorative justice in demonstrating the promise of mediation in criminal justice.     

Criminal justice faculty and criminal justice students: A case for the missing data

This article reviews the most current criminal justice education research. It examines the interrelationship between the work of the John Jay College of Criminal Justice, the Academy of Criminal Justice Sciences, the Joint Commission on Criminology and Criminal Justice Education and Standards, and the National Advisory Commission on Higher Education for Police, and describes and compares some of their more important findings. Discussed are types of criminal justice programs; characteristics of criminal justice faculty, particularly in terms of earned academic degrees; agency work experience; commitment to research and teaching; types of criminal justice curricula, as typified by certain educational philosophies; and criminal justice students. Although this article notes several areas with which future research might become fruitfully involved, the area in need of most immediate attention, and the area that current research has all but ignored, is the criminal justice student.     

Justice for All: Putting Victims at the Heart of Criminal Justice?

This article considers the claim in the government's White Paper, Justice for All , to put victims and witnesses at the heart of the criminal justice system and argues that there is an unresolved tension within the paper between instrumentalist crime control concerns and intrinsic concerns for the rights of victims and witnesses. It is argued that many of the proposals now contained in the latest Criminal Justice Bill are so preoccupied with rebalancing the system away from offenders that they risk doing injustice to defendants with little tangible benefit to victims and witnesses in terms of rights and remedies.     

刑事被害人国家补偿制度构想

刑事被害人的权利救济是现代人权保护的一个重要问题。当被害人遭受犯罪行为侵害而又难以得到充分赔偿时，为保护被害人权利，彰显社会公平，应当由国家给予一定的物质补偿。目前，一些国家已先后建立了刑事被害人国家补偿制度而我国目前还没有建立。因此笔者建议，在建设社会主义和谐社会的进程中，我们也应立足中国国情，借鉴国外经验，早日建立符合中国国情的刑事被害人国家补偿制度。     

关于刑事和解的几点看法

刑事犯罪多发背景下,被害人利益难以通过传统刑事诉讼程序获得有效救济,甚至存在被害人在刑事诉讼过程中二次受害的情形,从而引发一系列不稳定社会因素,与建设和谐社会的要求背道而驰。刑事和解正是在被害人保护思想的发展与犯罪人复归思想的兴起基础上产生的以恢复性司法为基本理念以构建和谐社会为终极目标的新型刑事案件解决制度。     

刑事被害人当事人化的反思与制度重构

刑事被害人当事人化的实质是犯罪损害追诉方式的公私合一,该制度设计混淆了公益和私益两种不同性质的诉讼,导致两种权益保护相互冲突进而对刑事司法结果公正造成负面影响。公私分离是刑事被害人去当事人化的当然制度选择,其立法对策主要包括在刑事立法中确立被害人为特殊诉讼参与人、废除被害人在刑事审判中就定罪量刑发表意见的权利、废止被害人刑事自诉权和切断其引起刑事二审、再审的程序路径。同时需要完善相关配套举措,如允许被害人对其物质和精神损害单独提起民事诉讼、完善精神损害赔偿制度、建立刑事被害人国家补偿制度等。     

Criminal Mediation in Mainland China: A Leap from Judicial Endeavor to Legal Norm

The use of mediation in the public prosecution of criminal matters has had a nation-wide impact since being introduced by China’s Judiciary. After almost 10 years, mediation in criminal prosecution cases has, in 2012, now been adopted by the newly revised Criminal Procedure Law 2012 (NPC 2012). This paper examines the characteristics of Chinese criminal mediation, and its introduction and development, by analyzing the empirical data collected from the practice. The ineffectiveness of collateral civil proceedings to criminal procedure to compensate victims, the resulting complaints and petitions argued by them, and the need to resolve the disputes in a way that promotes social harmony, were seen as important reasons to bring criminal mediation practices to China. Varying from ‘western’ restorative justice practices, China’s criminal mediation is closely associated with China’s powerful state criminal justice apparatus, which itself is restricted by the rigidity of the law.