羁押属性及适用原则

羁押是刑事诉讼中常用的一种人身强制措施 ,在不同的社会形态中反映出不同的性质和功能 ,在不同的诉讼阶段也有不同的意义。现代羁押制度是在刑事法治原则及无罪推定原则指导下的 ,专门机关根据法定审查机关决定 ,将犯罪嫌疑人、被告人关押在指定场所剥夺其人身自由的强制措施。羁押的主要目的在于防止嫌疑人、被告人逃跑、自杀、妨害证据 ,以保证及时到案及审判活动的顺利进行 ,预防再犯罪则是辅助性的。审判前的羁押应是例外的措施 ,采取替代措施应为一般性原则。在制定和适用羁押制度过程中 ,要贯彻法制、比例、司法、诉权以及一次性、令状、防止双重风险等原则。     

论未决羁押的司法审查制度

作为一种限制公民人身自由的最重要的手段,未决羁押不仅关系到公民的基本权利,也反映出一个国家的法治水平。现代西方法治国家普遍建立了未决羁押的司法审查制度,由中立的司法机构对羁押的合法性进行审查。而我国并没有建立这一制度,导致在司法实践中滥用羁押权、侵犯嫌疑人、被告人权利的事件时有发生。本文通过比较西方各国关于未决羁押的规定,从而发现我国未决羁押制度中存在的缺陷,并提出了构建我国未决羁押司法审查机制所应该在观念上和制度设计上的改变。     

浅谈羁押期限制度之完善

现代法律意义上的羁押,是在人权保障和无罪推定等现代法治原则指导下,为保证刑事诉讼正当程序的顺利进行,对尚未经过审判确定有罪的犯罪嫌疑人和被告人实施暂时剥夺人身自由,关押在专门场所的强制措施。在我国现行刑事诉讼制度中,羁押体现为拘留和逮捕两种形式。关于羁押期限的     

监视居住制度评析——以2011年《刑事诉讼法修正案(草案)》为视角

2011年《中华人民共和国刑事诉讼法修正案(草案)》(以下简称《修正案草案》)充分注意到了现行监视居住制度在实施过程中所暴露出的问题,并对监视居住制度进行了一系列的改造。《修正案草案》的立法初衷是将监视居住确立为一种减少羁押的替代性措施,但具体的条文设计却使监视居住制度产生了内部的分裂。在嫌疑人、被告人自己住所执行的监视居住可以被认为是一种非羁押性的强制措施,但指定居所的监视居住显然已成为一种羁押性的强制措施。因此,为了防止权力的滥用和充分保障嫌疑人、被告人的人权,对指定居所的监视居住需要进行更为严格的审查与控制。具体的审查、控制方法可以参照对逮捕的审查、控制方法,同时也需要确立对其进行定期羁押必要性审查的制度。另外还需确立错误指定居所监视居住的国家赔偿制度作为最后一道"防线"。     

确立羁押必要性审查机制研究

刑事羁押对于防止犯罪嫌疑人、被告人逃避法律追究、继续危害社会起着举足轻重的作用,在我国不是一个独立的强制措施,而是刑事拘留和逮捕的附属状态.在日常的司法实践过程中,我国现行的强制羁押制度逐渐暴露出许多的不足和缺位,“一捕到底”成为刑事诉讼的常态.根据无罪推定原则的要求,未决羁押应属非常态的例外,保持羁押的比例性,完善、规范羁押规定.     

论羁押审查方式

羁押是法院作出生效有罪判决之前剥夺人身自由最严重的措施,关涉犯罪嫌疑人、被告人的基本权利,且与无罪推定原则存在高度紧张关系。因此,世界各国和地区大都对羁押采取严格的程序控制。羁押审查方式是羁押审查程序的基本构成要素。域外一般都采取听审或者讯问的方式进行羁押审查。我国的羁押审查采取何种形式,法律没有明确规定。最高人民检察院要求检察机关审查批准逮捕应当讯问嫌疑人,并听取辩护人的意见,但缺少诉讼化的程序保障,实践中难以切实维护犯罪嫌疑人的合法权益,保证羁押决定的程序公正。因此,应当借鉴域外的立法经验,结合我国的实际情况,从立法上明确我国的羁押审查应采取不公开的听审方式,并建立审查机关、申请机关和嫌疑人及其辩护人三方参与的羁押审查程序。     

审前羁押的法律控制——比较法角度的分析

审前羁押作为一种最严厉的强制措施 ,会使嫌疑人、被告人的人身自由受到较为严重的侵害。为对审前羁押实施严密的法律控制 ,西方国家在法律上将羁押与逮捕加以严格的分离 ,从实体构成要件上限定了适用羁押的法律根据 ,对羁押的期限及其延长作出了明确的规定 ,将羁押场所与逮捕后的监禁场所加以分离 ,并从程序上为被羁押者提供了各种司法救济途径。在这些问题上 ,西方国家的法律确立了一些基本原则和理论框架。     

谈捕后羁押必要性审查机制存在的问题及完善建议

新刑诉法第九十三条规定：“犯罪嫌疑人、被告人被逮捕后,人民检察院仍应当对羁押的必要性进行审查。对不需要继续羁押的,应当建议予以释放或者变更强制措施。”这一规定从立法层面确立了我国捕后羁押必要性审查制度。捕后羁押必要性审查制度的确立,加强了检察机关对羁押执行的监督,是我国现行逮捕羁押制度的一项重大改革。     

刍议未决羁押的公正性及其保障

"未决羁押",是指犯罪嫌疑人、被告人在法院作出生效裁判之前被剥夺人身自由的法律状态,它是司法机关依法对因涉嫌犯罪而受到刑事追诉的犯罪嫌疑人、被告人采取的限制其人身自由的一种最严厉的强制措施。未决羁押是以剥夺人的基本权利(人身自由)为代价的,那么,在现代法治观念和无罪推定原则框架内,究竟应当如何辩证地看待刑事诉讼的人权保障功能进而认识未决羁押的公正性问题就成了摆在我们面前的一道课题。未决羁押具有当然的公正性。对我国未决羁押制度在立法及司法实践中暴露的各种损害其公正性的问题,建立更为科学合理的程序性的制度保障才是解决问题的关键。     

拟制被告人:违法所得没收程序中权利保障的理想路径简

当事人富有成效的程序参与既是正当程序的基石，也是一系列现代诉讼原则有效运行的前提。经由正当程序的检视，违法所得没收程序重打击、轻保护的面向尽显。从法理上厘清保护犯罪嫌疑人、被告人权利的原理，意在探索打击和保护并重的有效路径。在嫌疑人、被告人逃匿且无法通知其本人的情形中设置拟制被告人制度便是其中之一。现有的制度架构和国外已有的经验显示．在我国违法所得没收程序中构建拟制被告人制度具有可行性。这种可行性在完善指定代理人制度、庭审规则、通知公告制度后，即可实现应然向实然的转化。     

略论“鉴定留置”——由邓玉姣案说起

邓玉娇故意伤害案中的司法精神医学鉴定的过程,非常典型地暴露出了我国司法精神医学鉴定中有关＂鉴定留置＂制度缺位的严重问题。精神病鉴定虽然是一个医学问题,但它更是一个法律问题,我国对司法精神病鉴定制度的规定存在严重的缺失,对精神病鉴定等一系列问题的立法必须提升到我国立法的议事日程上来。对此,我们应当借鉴国外成熟经验,首先,应认识到对犯罪嫌疑人精神病鉴定是需要干涉公民人身自由的强制处分行为,并明确限定鉴定留置的范围。其次,对于鉴定留置的适用条件,在决定适用此措施之前必须听取鉴定人、辩护人意见,同时,鉴定留置措施只能适用于具有重大犯罪嫌疑的被指控人。再次,应明确规定对犯罪嫌疑人精神病鉴定的期间,在对犯罪嫌疑人精神病鉴定的期间不计羁押期限的基础上,明确犯罪嫌疑人精神病鉴定的时间,应当能够折抵刑期。     

The Effects of Legal and Extralegal Factors on Detention Decisions in US District Courts

The Bail Reform Act of 1984 changed the law dictating release and detention decisions in federal court. Since its passage, few studies have examined judicial decision-making in this context. Legal research enables us to account for the structure and interpretation of federal detention laws and to analyze previously neglected measures of legal factors in our analyses. We use US Sentencing Commission data on a sample of defendants who were sentenced in 2007 (N?=?31,043). We find that legal factors—particularly length of criminal history, having committed a violent or otherwise serious offense, and having committed the offense while under supervision of the criminal justice system—have the strongest relationships with the presentence detention outcome. A defendant’s age, race, and ethnicity have weaker relationships with detention. When we compare defendants who are similarly situated with respect to legal factors, the probability of detention is similar regardless of age, race, and ethnicity.     

Is the Process the Only Punishment?: Racial–Ethnic Disparities in Lower-Level Courts

Although misdemeanors make up the bulk of criminal cases in the United States, the majority of research on court decision-making examines felony sentencing. In contrast to felony courts, lower-level courts are characterized by higher case volumes and increased reliance on informal sanctions, which may contribute to greater racial–ethnic disparities. To assess this possibility, we examine pretrial detention and case processing outcomes for misdemeanants in Miami-Dade County, Florida. Utilizing temporal (detention time) and monetary (bond amount) measures of pretrial detention, we assess whether and to what extent there are racial–ethnic disparities in formal and informal sanctions facing misdemeanants. Results indicate that black defendants, especially black Latinx defendants, face greater informal sanctions (longer detention and higher bond amounts), are more likely to be convicted, and experience more severe formal sanctions than do white non-Latinx defendants. These findings complicate Feeley's (1979) argument about lower-level cases, revealing that black defendants are punished by both the court process and formal sanctions. In this way, “the process is the punishment” for lower-level white and nonwhite defendants, while the punishment is also the punishment for black defendants.     

比较法视野中的刑事强制措施

从比较法的角度看,我国刑事强制措施制度具有立法授权的分散性和实际权力的集中性、适用对象的特定性和适用目的的单一性等特点,但在体系上过度依赖羁押性手段,在制度设计上未能充分体现人权保障的精神,司法实践中"惩罚性"地适用强制措施以及追诉机关自我授权和执法违法的现象比较突出。为了保障公民的人身自由不受非法侵犯,应当对适用强制措施的权力进行重新分配,形成以强制到案的措施和强制候审的措施为基本类型的强制措施新体系,将取保候审设计为最常用的一种强制措施,并且完善相关的配套制度,健全适用强制措施过程中的权利救济机制。     

Detention Patterns of Successful and Unsuccessful Insanity Defendants

This study examines the detention patterns of the insanity defendant who is successful with the plea and hospitalized, or unsuccessful and incarcerated. Further comparisons are made with felony defendants who never entered a plea of not guilty by reason of insanity (NGRI). From existing data it is unclear to what extent detention may vary if the plea is successful as compared to if it is not successful. Of all defendants who entered a plea of NGRI in Erie County, New York (Buffalo) between 1970 and 1980, 128 were institutionalized as a result of their disposition. Sociodemographic, institutionalization histories, arrest, and disposition information were collected and analyzed for all 128 individuals. The research evaluates differences in the likelihood and length of either institutionalization or incarceration and in the rates of release between successful NGRI defendants, those who entered the plea unsuccessfully, and those who did not plead NGRI. From the findings reported here the authors conclude that pleading NGRI in Eric County may not be quite as advantageous for a defendant as commonly is believed.     

Is a Plea Really a Bargain? An Empirical Study of Six Cities in China

There is a belief in the criminal justice system that it is better to take a plea offer to avoid uncertain consequences than risk going to trial. Prior studies using the data in Anglo-American courts have suggested that many legal and extralegal factors influence the decision of a guilty plea versus trial. China developed its own plea-bargaining system in 2016. Using 6826 DUI cases adjudicated in six cities, this study examines what factors affect the decision of a guilty plea and whether the guilty plea brings true benefits in Chinese courts. The results show that more serious crimes and more dangerous defendants were less likely to be disposed of through guilty pleas (as opposed to going to trial). One possible explanation is that prosecutors may make more punitive offers in these cases, which in turn discourages defendants from accepting them. In addition, using a propensity score weighting technique to control for potential confounding variables, this study finds that defendants who pleaded guilty were more likely to receive favorable case outcomes regarding pretrial detention and probation decision, which supports the argument that a guilty plea could help a defendant to avoid the “trial penalty” in Chinese criminal justice system.

     

刑事拘留制度：问题与进路

现行拘留制度在查明案件事实、收集证据的过程中发挥了重要的保障功能。然而,由于立法规定的模糊性、办案人员片面重视追诉等原因,导致实践中拘留常常被任意延长,使嫌疑人的合法权益被侵犯且缺乏有效的司法救济,从中可以看出现行拘留制度的设计仍然存在诸多问题。因此,笔者认为,在封现行制度作出深刻的反思的基础上,需要理顺拘留与逮捕、拘留与羁押的关系,并提出两套方案试图促进实现近期和速期的制度完善。     

保释制度探微

审前羁押有利于侦查工作和刑事诉讼程序的顺利进行，但是该措施以付出限制犯罪嫌疑人的人身自由为代价。保释制度既可以使犯罪嫌疑人获得有限的自由，又能够保证刑事诉讼的顺利进行，现已成为许多国家采用的羁押替代措施。我国目前超期羁押现象严重，赋予犯罪嫌疑人保释权、构建我国保释制度是从根本上解决该问题的出路。我国宪法应将保释权作为基本人权予以明确规定，并制定保释法对保释的范围、保释的条件、保释的程序等作出具体规定。     

少捕慎诉慎押刑事司法政策研究

少捕慎诉慎押刑事司法政策是推进国家治理体系和治理能力现代化,实现强制措施制度回归诉讼保障功能,应对犯罪结构发生重大变化和深化落实宽严相济刑事政策的必然要求。贯彻少捕慎诉慎押刑事司法政策应当在厘清其内涵的基础上规范其适用范围并遵循一定的原则,其实施路径包括正确把握逮捕的条件;进行实质化的羁押必要性审查;用好、用足不起诉制度;与认罪认罚从宽制度合理衔接以及充分发挥辩护制度的重要作用等。检察机关作为捕诉职能的承担者,是该政策有效施行的“第一责任人”,应当充分发挥“司法纽带”作用。时机成熟时,应当对该政策进行延伸,形成“少拘少捕慎诉慎押慎判”的系统的刑事司法理念和政策。     

The percentage deposit bail system: An alternative to the professional bondsman

Bail bondsmen in the United States help defendants gain pretrial release. The preminums paid to bondsmen are not returned to the defendants. A percentage deposit bail project in two Massachusetts courts allowed defendants to gain their release by depositing 5% of the amount of bail with the court. These deposits were returned in full to the defendants upon completion of their cases, saving them large sums of money. Moreover, the rate at which defendants failed to appear in court as scheduled was no higher under this percentage deposit system than under the traditional bail bondsman system.