最高人民法院应立即收回死刑复核权

1月19日，《河南商报》发表《河北“摧花狂魔”荥阳落网》一文，报道了河北在逃嫌犯王书金所犯几起强奸罪行，其中包括他主动交待的一起石家庄孔寨村强奸杀人案，还精确地指出了案发地点。     

从死刑复核权的收回看限制死刑之必要

死刑是剥夺人生命的极刑,一旦实施就不可以挽回,世界各国对死刑的适用都采用了十分谨慎的态度,一些国家甚至废除了死刑。目前,废除死刑是不符合我国国情的,但是我们应慎重的适用死刑,因此,死刑复核权的收回问题在刑法理论界得到了普遍的关注。它的收回在很大程度上限制了死刑,这是我国司法制度的一大进步,但同时在实践中也带来了一些弊端。本文主要从死刑存在及限制死刑的必要性、死刑复核权收回的必要性以及死刑复核权收回的弊端几个方面来论述限制并慎重的处理死刑与死刑复核权的收回之间的关系。     

质疑死刑复核权的程序功能--以最高人民法院收回死刑核准权为切入点

死刑复核程序虽然具有控制死刑、纠正冤、假、错案、统一定罪量刑标准的功能,但对其期望值不宜过高,我们应理性地看待死刑复核程序的上述功能,不能让最高人民法院承载超出其实际能力的功能,否则对最高人民法院而言并不公正,就程序自身而言也不符合诉讼规律。我们应当从诉讼系统论的角度来寻求更科学、更有效、更经济的机制实现上述三项目标,而不能舍本逐末。     

论死刑复核权收回后复核程序的进一步完善

2007年1月1日开始,死刑复核权最终收归最高法行使,由此,死刑复核权和死刑复核程序再度成为理论界和实务界关注的焦点。本文从相关案例入手,阐述了死刑复核程序存在的诸多问题,并提出有关完善建议以及对死刑复核程序回归的认识。     

收回死刑复核权面临的难题及其破解

It is of great significance for the Supreme Court of China (SCC) to take back the power of having judicial review for death sentences. For that purpose, first, we have to amend the procedures for judicial review for death sentences, including precisely defining the responsibility of the SCC to review death sentences, determining appropriate modes of review, prescribing the time limit of review, allowing the participation of defense lawyers and prosecutors, etc. Second, we must also amend the appellate procedures for capital cases, including holding hearings, comprehensive trial of key cases, and adjusting the time limit for the second instance. Third, we must improve relative systems that can directly affect the trial quality of capital cases, including the improvement of evidentiary rules, the reform of judicial committees, and the forbiddance to change an original sentence into a death sentence. Long Zongzhi, professor, chairs the academic commission at Southwestern University of Politics and Law. Meanwhile, he takes the vice chair of the supervising committee of legal education in the Ministry of Education of China. He advanced the theory of dual structure of criminal litigation in early 1990s and put forward the theory of relative reasonableness in late 1990s, which exerted great influence in academic law. Moreover, he has published a great number of works on criminal litigation, judicial system, and evidence law.     

收回死刑复核权面临的难题及其破解

最高人民法院收回死刑复核权意义重大,但可能存在政治风险、职能难题、整体性问题和程序性障碍。应对难题的原则与对策:一是系统思维、综合治理。尤其强调观念的转变、审判独立性的保障以及死刑替代措施的跟进;二是逐步推进、有利有节;三是技术处理、区别对待;四是分级负责、责任下沉、责任明确。为此,必须完善死刑复核程序。包括准确界定最高法院复核责任,确定适当的复核审审理方式,限定复核时间,允许辩护律师与检察官参加复核程序等。必须完善死刑案件二审程序,包括实行开庭审理及有重点的全面审理方式,同时应当适当调整二审审理期限。还必须改革、完善直接影响死刑案件质量的相关制度,包括从多方面完善证据规则,改革审判委员会制度以及禁止再审改判死刑等。     

完善我国死刑复核法律监督制度——收回死刑复核权的后续配套改革

随着最高人民法院收回死刑复核权、死刑二审实现全面开庭审理,不仅法院面临着一系列程序改革问题,而且检察机关也面临着严峻的挑战,比如检察机关是否应当参与死刑复核程序,检察机关如何对死刑复核程序进行法律监督等。无论从权力制约理论的要求,还是从实现司法公正、维护司法权威的角度讲,我国检察机关都应当参与死刑复核程序,履行法律监督职责。为此,应当从检察机关的内设机构、人员编制、监督程序等方面,完善我国检察机关的死刑复核法律监督制度。     

最高人民法院的死刑复核程序

死刑复核权于2007年收回最高人民法院以后,中国死刑案件的最终决定程序完全改变.业内人士普遍估计,现在每年的死刑人数已经大幅削减.一位接近法院系统的学者表示,就他和最高人民法院及地方高级法院一些相关人士的接触了解,“和2007年以前相比,全国(每年)的(死刑)数字减少可能超过1/3,有些地方(减少了)将近一半”.     

舞不动的镣铐——析最高法院收回死刑复核权

随着司法改革进程的逐步加快，要求最高法院收回死刑复核权的呼声也日渐高涨。与此同时，专业学者也就收回的方案各抒己见，提出了一系列的观点。但从我国目前的实际情况来看，这些高成本的改革方案是不可取的。因此，我们应该转换思维．从另一个角度来寻求解决的办法，而从立法上减少死刑正是这唯一的选择。     

论我国死刑复核权的立法之完善

最高人民法院收回了下放长达26年之久的死刑复核权,这在中国司法领域界是一件大事。本文在此历史背景下在引言部分简单的介绍了一下死刑的含义和死刑复核权的意义,然后在正丈部分首先对死刑复核权下放的历史以及由此在实践中产生的问题进行了回顾,然后对回收后的死刑复核权存在的一些疑问做了论述,最后阐述了对我国死刑复核权的进一步立法完善。     

UNDERSTANDING THE INFLUENCE OF VICTIM GENDER IN DEATH PENALTY CASES: THE IMPORTANCE OF VICTIM RACE,SEX‐RELATED VICTIMIZATION,AND JURY DECISION MAKING*

Using data from the Baldus, Woodworth, and Pulaski (1990) study of Georgia's death penalty system, we examine the influence of victim gender in death penalty cases. Furthermore, to improve our understanding of the meaning of victim gender, we consider 1) the joint effects of victim gender and victim race, 2) victimization characteristics that might explain victim gender effects, and 3) the impact of victim gender at different decision‐making stages in the death penalty case process. We find that both victim gender and race are associated with death sentencing outcomes and that an examination of the joint effects of victim gender and race reveals considerable differences in the likelihood of receiving a death sentence between the most disparate victim race–gender groups. In particular, it seems that black male victim cases are set apart from all others in terms of leniency afforded to defendants. We also show that the effect of victim gender is explained largely by gender differences in the sexual nature of some homicides. An examination of prosecutorial and jury decision making reveals that although victim gender has little impact on prosecutorial decisions, it has a meaningful impact on jury decisions.