辩护权与刑事诉讼价值

一、刑事诉讼中的价值追求在我国占主流的哲学理论中，“价值”一般被认为是客体所具有的能够满足主体自身需要的某种功能或者属性，据此，有的学者认为，价值“在哲学原理中则表示已经纳入人类认识和实践范围的客体的各种能够主体需要的功能或属性”，由此进一步推导，刑事诉讼价值是指“刑事诉讼立法及其实施能够满足国家、社会及其一般成员的特定需要而对国家、社会及其一般成员所具有的效用和意义”。由于“在主体本身多种利益的需求下，人们的价值观念和价值活动也必然是是多样的、多维的”。于是，这些学者将公正、效率、自由、和平、…     

从"诉讼状态说"看刑事诉讼程序的独立价值

我国理论所公认的刑事诉讼程序具有独立价值是从程序公正本身体现着民主、人权和正义精神来说的。德国学者哥德施密特提出了刑事诉讼目的是为了实现既判力,诉讼活动是期待与负担关系的"诉讼状态说"。这一新的观点为我们认识刑事诉讼程序的独立价值提供了新的视角,即刑事诉讼程序具有保障实现既判力的独立价值。     

刑事诉讼价值评论

我国目前两种主流的刑事诉讼价值观———“目的价值观”和“过程价值观” ,都存在着一定的理论瑕疵。从价值的一般涵义出发 ,现代刑事诉讼价值体系是一个多层次、有结构的统一体 ,它涵括了目的价值和形式价值两个子系统。目的价值是指刑事诉讼致力实现的社会理想和终极目标 ,具体而言是指自由和秩序的价值结构。而形式价值则是指刑事诉讼本身在组织结构上的形式合理性 ,即刑事诉讼程序必须具有独立性、中立性、平等性、公开性、科学性。     

关于刑事程序价值的几点思考

刑事程序价值是哲学价值在刑事诉讼法学领域的具体反映,它在本质上是主客体之间的互动关系,是主体需要与客体属性之闻的一致性.对于主体而言它表现为一定的需求,对于客体而言它表现为一定的属性,既不等同干它的有用性,也不等同于它的抽象的"善",更不等同于国家整体利益.刑事程序价值在构成上可以分为目的价值和工具价值,其中工具价值又包含两个层次对实体结果的工具价值和对社会生活的工具价值.刑事程序价值与刑事诉讼目的、刑事诉讼构造和刑事诉讼职能具有密切的联系,对刑事程序价值的研究能为这些相关范畴的理论研究提供新的视角和方法论指导.     

刑事诉讼文化研讨

刑事诉讼文化对刑事诉讼制度建设和运行有巨大影响。刑事诉讼文化是指人们对待刑事诉讼制度的态度，包括人们对刑事诉讼的认知、情感和评价等。刑事诉讼文化具有抽象性、地域性、延续性等特征。从国家形成的方式、地理环境、社会结构、经济条件、思想条件五个方面可看出中西刑事诉讼文化的差异。对中国传统刑事诉讼文化应该进行改造。     

刑事诉讼的价值与冲突

刑事诉讼是司法者以国家名义追究行为人刑事责任的活动，其价值是实现国家的刑罚权，而刑事诉讼法是制约司法者的行为规则。其价值是保障司法公正，维护法制的社会基础。这种矛盾根本上是由于人之存在的有限性与个体性而决定的司法主体的二重性。赋予被告人、被害人等诉讼参与人以诉讼权利，是基于客观的认识规律与体现公民宪法权利的需要。司法权力的分工是基于以权力制约权力的要求。无罪推定是对司法者的行为规则，而并不是刑事诉讼的价值原则     

论刑事诉讼成本

刑事诉讼成本是指国家和诉讼参与人为实现其刑事诉讼目的所支出的、客观存在的各种损耗,其影响因素主要有:个案诉讼周期、司法工作人员数量及素质、诉讼程序的设置、刑事诉讼司法独立程度。为降低刑事诉讼成本,在保证刑事诉讼公正的前提下可采取以下措施:1.减少司法工作人员数量,提高司法工作人员素质;2.在刑事诉讼过程中贯彻“坦白从宽”的刑事政策;3.改革我国现行司法制度,谋求刑事司法公正。     

我国刑事诉讼目的论

刑事诉讼目的的确立及其实现,决定着刑事诉讼活动的方向,也与刑事诉讼主体、职能、结构等紧密相关,因而成为刑事诉讼法学研究的一个基本问题。现代西方国家及日本关于刑事诉讼目的的争论,主要有实体真实说和正当程序说。实体真实说刑事诉讼目的在刑事程序领域居核心地位。针对这一问题,我国学者也提出了不同学说。本文拟从多元化角度入手,研究刑事诉讼的基本理念,进一步论证多元目的论。     

基层检察院在司法文明中的作用

一、司法文明的内涵和要求 司法文明是指在刑事诉讼过程中所有代表国家行使司法公权的司法主体的司法行为文明。即刑事诉讼程序本身符合司法公正与现代法制文明的一些基本要求,其核心是司法人员在具体办案过程中的司法行为具有文明规范,对所有诉讼参与人,特别是犯罪嫌疑人、被告人、被害人的合法权益给予应有的尊重     

从刑事诉讼客体看起诉权对审判权的制约作用

刑事诉讼客体是指刑事诉讼主体实施诉讼行为进行刑事诉讼活动所指向的实体法事实和程序法事实。从刑事诉讼客体的角度,起诉权对审判权应起制约作用,因此,法院无权任意改变公诉机关所指控的罪名。     

论我国刑事诉讼目的、价值的定位及其实现条件

在刑事诉讼价值问题上应确立程序内在价值优先的价值观;在刑事诉讼目的问题上应确立安全优先兼顾公正的目的观;两者并不矛盾。提出,为了实现我国刑事诉讼目的,体现刑事诉讼价值,必须完善现行刑诉法;设置科学合理的司法体制;使司法人员真正树立法律至上、公正司法的法律价值观;设置完善的监督制约机制。     

价值视角的转变与正义模式的演绎——评美国1998年《ADR 法》

经过联邦法院对 ADR 的十几年的探索实验,美国国会最终通过了1998年《ADR 法》,为 ADR 措施的开展发放了“绿卡”。该法要求所有的美国联邦法院实施“当事人服务型”的 ADR 措施,并允许法院强制当事人参加 ADR 程序。联邦法院 ADR 部门要想成功有效的实施该法,对各种 ADR 措施进行选择,以使其与现有的法院体系相兼容,同时为当事人提供便利,首先要协调好 ADR 措施所内涵的正义模式与一直引导着法院的传统的判决型的正义模式的关系。     

关于刑事诉讼当事人处分权的思考

刑事诉讼当事人处分权的正当性来源于两个方面:一是权利具有可分性;二是当事人作为程序主体理应具有自主性.刑事诉讼当事人处分权的内容体现在程序启动、程序选择和变更以及程序参与的过程中.对刑事诉讼当事人的处分权应予以适度限制,具体体现为效力范围的限制、社会公益的限制和国家权力的限制.     

论我国刑事审判监督程序之改革

The amendment of China’s Criminal Procedure Law has attracted the eyes of both the academic and judicial practice circles. In this research, the authors focus on a particular aspect of the criminal procedure law called the criminal procedure for trial supervision (also called as criminal retrial procedure) to conduct a comprehensive and systematic discussion from three aspects—the necessity of its existence and reform, the concept of its reconstruction and the detailed concepts of reform. The authors consider that the existence of the criminal retrial procedure is in line with the law of litigation, and necessary for the realization of judicial justice; there are obvious defects in China’s criminal retrial procedure in view of the realization of judicial justice and the improvement of efficiency, which calls for reform based on updated concepts. This article points out that the modern criminal retrial procedure must combine the concepts of the pursuit of justice, correction of erroneous judgments and res judicata and the rule of prohibition against double jeopardy. The authors also give several suggestions on the reform of China’s criminal retrial procedure.     

优先公正 兼顾效率：两岸刑事诉讼法修改的共同趋向——以公诉案件起诉与一审程序为视角

基于刑事诉讼中两对基本矛盾的存在,几十年来,大陆和台湾两岸地区根据各自经济、社会发展的需、人们对司法活动的期待以及刑事诉讼活动的实际情况和运行特点,分别对各自的刑事诉讼法进行了大幅度的修改,虽各具特点,存在不少差异,但殊途同归,呈现出诸多共同性,其中公正优先,兼顾效率是两岸刑事诉讼法修改的共同价值趋向.     

Beyond normative constraints: Declining institutionalism and the emergence of substantive and procedural justice

Popular notions of what it means to be put on trial invariably generate thoughts of the adversarial criminal trial, most often before a judge and jury. However, the criminal trial as the site for the testing of evidence of wrongdoing via a model of proof that proceeds according to prescribed processes in a normative institutional milieu is in decline. Controversially, this decline has been met with resistance from the legal profession, academics, policy makers and other stakeholders seeking to preserve the due process model that defines the criminal trial as an adversarial exchange between state and defendant. While the due process model continues to dominate as popular conceptualisation, the twenty-first century criminal trial has changed to such an extent that it is no longer seen as the quintessential form for the meting out of procedural fairness and testing of state's evidence, that emerged toward the end of the seventeenth century. Rather, the rise of control orders, modifications to the law of evidence, and the right of the accused to confront their accuser, together with the inclusion of non-traditional agents of justice, specifically victims and the community, has brought forward an era of substantive and procedural justice that lies beyond the normative constraints of the criminal trial. Robed counsel and bewigged judges beware; the advent of substantive and procedural justice has allowed for greater innovation transgressing the orthodoxies of criminal law in common law systems of justice. This paper will consider the virtues of the introduction of a transgressive criminal procedure.     

Theorising Children's Rights in Youth Justice: The Significance of Autonomy and Foundational Rights

This paper develops a theoretical approach to children's rights in youth justice, located within a wider rights‐based theory of criminal justice which emphasises the centrality of citizens' autonomy. Understanding what is special about children's rights in the youth justice system requires an understanding of how children's autonomy differs from that of adults. One difference is that within the legal system children are not considered to be fully autonomous rights‐holders, because childhood is a time for gathering and developing the assets necessary for full autonomy. These assets should be protected by a category of ‘foundational’ rights. It is argued that an essential component of a rights‐based penal system for children is that it should not irreparably or permanently harm the child's foundational rights. The concept of foundational rights can then underpin and strengthen international children's rights standards, including those relating to the minimum age of criminal responsibility, differential sentencing for children and adults and a rights‐based system of resettlement provision.     

Rethinking responses to 'domestic violence' in Australian indigenous communities

The United Nations' response to violence against women was to adopt the Declaration on the Elimination of Violence against Women in December, 1993 that recognized indigenous women to be especially vulnerable to violence. Australia's initiatives during the 1990s included criminal justice reform, crisis service provision and community-based mediation programmes that have not proved altogether helpful for indigenous women. Given the intractable nature of violence against indigenous women, this paper holds that community-based programmes cannot work in isolation from criminal justice intervention. An approach to male-to-female violence, that views the criminal justice system not only as a means of punishment, but also as an institution for expressing human rights norms is advocated.     

对侦查讯问合法性、公正性的思考

侦查讯问的合法性,是指侦查讯问活动按照刑事诉讼法对侦查讯问的主体、讯问的方式、讯问的地点、讯问的顺序、讯问时应当保障的犯罪嫌疑人的权利的要求来开展;侦查讯问的公正性,是指侦查讯问的实体内容和讯问程序过程要体现公平、公道、合理、正义等价值目标。但我国现阶段的侦查讯问仍存在着不公正性的问题,要克服这种不公正性,可以确立有限沉默权的原则,完善立法,提高执法理念。     

论恢复性司法的本土资源与制度构建

恢复性司法缘起于上世纪70年代的刑事司法实践,并逐渐成为影响传统刑事司法的重要司法范式。恢复性司法是在反思传统司法的基础上产生、发展起来的。可以弥补传统刑事司法过于对抗、忽视被害人等缺陷,从而迅速风靡于西方国家。我国无论是文化观念,还是刑事司法制度与实践,都存在着契合于恢复性司法的因素。刑事司法制度的完善,有必要吸收恢复性司法的理念,结合我国刑事司法的本土资源,建立恢复性司法制度。