浅谈附条件不起诉之合法性及构建

附条件不起诉制度是刑去个别化原则在司法实践中的合理运用，是当前司法改革亟待建立的重要内容。尽管检察机关在当前法律框架下不具备适用附条件不起诉制度的权力，但附条件不起诉制度与刑法三大原则及法院定罪原则并无违背，符合法治要求之合法性。在设计上，应明确附条件不起诉制度的适用范围、运作程序及监督制约，以探索符合基层检察机关实践的制度构建。     

检察机关逮捕权制约机制的反思与重构

现行检察机关逮捕权监督制约机制的缺陷是:批捕程序行政化、逮捕条件适用的不合理化、犯罪嫌疑人、被害人及律师权利监督的虚无化、人民监督员的监督效果不明显、上级人民检察院的监督流于形式.从正当程序和保障人权的理念出发,我国逮捕制度改革的目标是实现逮捕程序的诉讼化和正当化,主要内容是:明确逮捕条件;推进审查批捕程序的诉讼化改造;加强权利保护,强化权利监督;加强人民监督员的监督;完善备案审查制度,强化上级检察机关的监督.     

未检工作须注意三个方面

修改后刑诉法明确规定了未成年人刑事案件的办案方针和原则,设置了附条件不起诉制度、强制辩护制度、社会调查制度、犯罪记录封存制度,并要求对未成年人严格适用逮捕措施和分案处理。检察机关该如何发挥检察职能,更好地保障未成年人的诉讼权利和其他合法权益,本文认为可以着重从以下几方面入手:一、审查逮捕阶段,坚持捕前评估,严格限制适用逮捕措施。修改后刑诉法第二百六十九条规定对未成年犯罪嫌疑人、被告人应当严格限制适用逮捕措施。笔者认为,在审查逮捕环节,检察机关要想做到     

附条件不起诉制度的几个问题

附条件不起诉制度是检察机关对特定范围内符合起诉条件的案件暂不起诉,给犯罪嫌疑人规定一定的考察义务和考察期限,看其在考察期内是否完成义务,待期满后再决定对其是否作出不起诉处理的制度。附条件不起诉是2012年刑事诉讼法修改新增加的内容,在司法实践中如何实施还有许多问题需要厘清。一、附条件不起诉制度的性质附条件不起诉是授权和规范检察机关行使起诉裁量权的诉讼制度,其实质是一种案件审前分流机制。起诉机关对某一具体案件是否拥有起诉裁量权,由该国在刑事诉讼程序中采取起诉法定原则还是起诉便宜原     

附条件逮捕制度的理性分析及完善建议

附条件逮捕制度是在现行法律的框架内,检察机关积极推行的一项工作机制。附条件逮捕是公安机关提请批准逮捕时,已构成刑事犯罪但证据有所欠缺有继续侦查可能的重大案件批准逮捕,在规定期限内无法侦查到足够的证据,释放犯罪嫌疑人。附条件逮捕可以保障人权和确保诉讼活动顺利进行,它建立的基础是逮捕的分层次理论。     

附条件逮捕制度若干问题研究

附条件逮捕制度是检察改革的内容之一,法律当中对逮捕条件规定不明确,在司法实践中因为对逮捕条件的理解存在分歧而出现了种种问题。本文指出了实施附条件逮捕的必要性,论证了实施附条件逮捕的合法性,并指出该制度的适用范围。     

职务犯罪案件批捕权上提一级试行改革报告

为强化对职务犯罪案件逮捕环节的监督制约,按照中央关于深化司法体制和工作机制改革的部署,2009年9月,全国绝大部分省级以下检察机关实施了批捕权上提一级改革。从改革实行一年来的情况看,取得了显著效果,但也存在一定的现实问题。本文在对部分改革试点情况调查分析基础上,提出转变传统的办案模式、实现上下级检察机关资源共享、加强同级审查力度、完善律师介入审查逮捕程序、规范自侦案件附条件逮捕制度、规范介入侦查引导取证机制等进一步完善职务犯罪案件审查逮捕方式的对策,以期充分实现此项改革在强化检察机关内部监督方面的制度优势。     

人民监督员制度需纳入立法规划

人民监督员制度,是检察机关在自侦案件办理过程中,对不服逮捕决定、拟撤案和拟不起诉案件实行的一项外部监督机制。在这一制度中,人民监督员是代表广大人民群众对检察机关办理自侦案件实施监督的主体。实践中,对于检察机关自侦案件的监督始终缺少有效的监督制约。长期以来,公安机关刑事案件侦查的合法性由检察机关监督,那么检察机关刑事案件侦查的合法性由谁来监督,对检察机关直接受理侦查的案件中被逮捕的犯罪嫌疑人不服逮捕决定、拟撤案和拟不起诉的案件办理工作又由谁来监督,成为检察机关外部监督的空白。人民监督员制度的建立和实施,首…     

附条件逮捕制度研究

附条件逮捕制度是检察机关逮捕工作的一项创新之举,而规范性适用是其存续的关键因素.本文从附条件逮捕制度的现实基础出发,分析该制度适用中存在的问题,明确规范适用的标准,以更好的发挥该项制度在司法实践中的作用.     

设立附条件不起诉制度完善检察机关相对不起诉权

当前，中央启动了以加强权力监督制约为重点的新一轮司法改革，最高人民检察院也出台了《贯彻落实中央政法委关于深化司法体制和工作机制改革若干问题意见的实施意见》，司法改革意见中明确提出了“设立附条件不起诉制度”。所谓附条件不起诉．是指检察机关对一些应当负刑事责任的犯罪嫌疑人．     

刑事侦查权的司法介入

我国刑事权运行中存在侦查机关的自行决定权力过大，检察机关的法律监督制约简单肤浅、流于形式，犯罪嫌疑人的辩护形无力虚，刑事诉讼参与人特别是犯罪嫌疑人缺乏有效的权利救济手段和途径的情况，使刑事侦查权因缺乏有效的监督制约而明显失衡，从而导致刑事司法权威与公信力的缺失。根据我国的司法实践结合国际公约的要求，必须在刑事侦查阶段建立中立、公正而又及时的司法审查，由法官主持司法介入审查刑事侦查权力行使的合法性，以防止侦查中滥用强制性措施对犯罪嫌疑人造成伤害，避免侦查权的异化，依法制约和规范刑事侦查行为，完善司法审判权的设置运行。     

审查逮捕程序诉讼化改革的路径考量——以《刑事诉讼法》的修改为背景

审查逮捕程序诉讼化强调逮捕程序应当由控辩审三方主体参与,检察机关在侦查机关及犯罪嫌疑人之间保持中立地位,保障犯罪嫌疑人及其辩护人的有效参与,决定逮捕的过程须遵循正当程序的要求。当前我国的审查逮捕程序普遍存在行政化、追诉化、救济虚无化、"一劳永逸"化等诸多问题,2012年修改通过的《刑事诉讼法》已经对此做出了适当的回应。但是,审查逮捕程序的诉讼化是今后我国刑事诉讼改革发展的必然趋势,仍需要对审查逮捕程序进行理念重构和制度创新。     

检察机关与侦查、审判机关配合制约机制的现状分析及完善

在我国刑事诉讼制度中,检察机关与侦查机关之间主要围绕侦查分工和追诉目标形成相应的配合制约机制;检察机关与审判机关之间则围绕查清犯罪事实和管辖程序展开配合、围绕裁判和审理程序展开制约。检察机关主要通过通知立案、通知撤案、不捕、不诉、追捕、追诉、纠正违法等方式对侦查机关进行制约,侦查机关则通过对不捕、不诉决定的复议、复核等方式对检察机关进行制约;检察机关主要通过抗诉和纠正违法对审判机关进行制约,审判机关则通过无罪判决、改变指控等对检察机关进行制约。在司法实践中,检察机关还通过侦诉协作、附条件逮捕、建议撤案和地方政法委协调等方式与侦查机关和审判机关进行配合。总体而言,在检察机关与侦查、审判机关之间的配合制约体系中还存在制约范围不全面、制约手段有限、制约结构不稳定、配合机制缺乏约束力、配合范围不明确、考核评价机制不协调等问题。对此,应当分别加以解决和完善。     

稳步建立我国沉默权制度的设想

沉默权的确立,有效地保护了在刑事诉讼中处于弱势地位的犯罪嫌疑人、被告人的人权,平衡了诉讼双方的权利和义务,是刑事诉讼走向民主化的体现,也是人类通向文明的表现.但其弊端也不容忽视:一方面.程序正义的实现有时可能以实体正义的丧失为代价,片面地强调沉默权,极易放纵犯罪.这与刑事诉讼法的兼顾保障人权与打击犯罪的目的背道而驰.为此,也需要对沉默权做出必要的限制.在总结经验的基础上提出确立符合我国国情的沉默权制度设想,希望能够对我国未来的刑事诉讼立法和司法实践有所帮助.     

Gender difference or indifference? Detective decision making in sexual assault cases

Prior research examining sexual assault case decision making has failed to account for the demographic characteristics of the criminal justice practitioners charged with making case decisions. Inclusion of such information is important because it provides researchers with a greater understanding of how criminal justice practitioners' own gender, race, age, and past experiences affect their judgments. This study seeks to examine whether gender differences exist in detectives' arrest decisions in sexual assault cases. Victim, suspect, incident, and detective characteristics are collected from police case and investigatory files on 328 criminal sexual assault cases involving adult female victims reported to a large Midwestern police department in 2003. Logistic regression is used to determine whether detective gender predicted the odds of arrest after controlling for incident, victim, and suspect characteristics. It is hypothesized that cases involving female detectives would be more likely to result in arrest after controlling for other incident, victim, and suspect characteristics. However, contrary to expectations, female detectives are significantly less likely than male detectives to arrest suspects in sexual assault cases even after controlling for the influence of other factors shown to predict arrest. The findings support prior research that suggests female practitioners may not necessarily be more sensitive toward female victims despite previous assumptions that this would hold true. The findings suggest that efforts to hire female police officers for the purposes of dealing with female-related victimization may ultimately undermine efforts to improve victim experiences with the criminal justice system. They further suggest that both researchers and police administrators need to rethink the best ways to serve female victims beyond hiring mandates.     

犯罪嫌疑人的确认

犯罪嫌疑人是刑事诉讼中的诉讼参与人 ,对其进行正确认定既能保障无辜的人不受追诉 ,同时又有利于确实保障被认定为犯罪嫌疑人的诉讼权利的及时行使。分析犯罪嫌疑人与被告人、初查时的犯罪嫌疑对象之间的界限 ,旨在解决确认一个人为犯罪嫌疑人需要具备哪些证据 ,这些证据应该达到一个什么样的标准 ,以及确认犯罪嫌疑人这一法律身份的起始时间和程序等问题 ,从而为正确认定犯罪嫌疑人提供一个具有可操作性的标准和规则     

The criminal justice response to wife assault

This paper reviews the criminal justice response to wife assault. By establishing a set of conditional probabilites for the reporting, detection, prosecution, and conviction for wife assault, the paper establishes that a “winnowing process” occurs that is not dissimilar to that reported for other crimes. The probability of wife assault being detected by the criminal justice system is about 6.5%. Given that it is detected, the probability of arrest is about 21.2% [comparable to a 20% arrest rate for a composite of 121 crimes reported by Hood and Sparks (1970)]. Subsequent conditional probabilities for conviction and punishment generate an aggregate probability that, given that an event of wife assault occurs, the perpetrator has a 0.38% chance of being punished by the courts. The policy implications of this review are that the greatest impact on wife assault recidivism reduction would be generated by police arrest rates regardless of court outcome. At present, however, it is not known whether this effect is produced by specific deterrence or by the didactic function of law. It is concluded that too little is known of the subjective states of wife assaulters to ascertain whether deterrence or some other mechanism accounts for the decreased recidivism reported after arrest.     

From devil’s advocate to crime fighter: confirmation bias and debiasing techniques in prosecutorial decision-making

ABSTRACT

This research examines the role of confirmation bias in prosecutorial decisions before, during and after the prosecution. It also evaluates whether confirmation bias is reduced by changing the decision maker between arrest and prosecution. In Experiment 1, Swedish prosecutors (N?=?40) assessed 8 scenarios where they either decided themselves or were informed about a colleague’s decision to arrest or not arrest a suspect. Participants then rated how trustworthy the suspect’s statement was as well as the strength of new ambiguous evidence and the total evidence. They also decided whether to prosecute and what additional investigative measures to undertake. In Experiment 2 the same method was used with Law and Psychology students (N?=?60). Overall, prosecutors’ assessments before the prosecution indicated that they were able to act as their own devil’s advocate. Also, their assessments while deciding about whether to prosecute were reasonably balanced. However, after pressing charges, they displayed a more guilt-confirming mindset, suggesting they then took on the role as crime fighters. This differed from the student sample in which higher levels of guilt confirmation was displayed in relation to arrested suspects consistently before, during and after a prosecution decision. The role of prosecutors’ working experience is discussed.     

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。     

关于我国刑事诉讼法修改基本方向的思考

我国刑事诉讼具有构造特征不够彰显、职权主义色彩浓厚的特点,因此,修改刑事诉讼法应当优先确立控审分离、控辩平等和审判中立三个目标。本文就控审分离、控辩平等、审判中立原则的基本内涵、我国刑事诉讼程序违反它们的表现及其原因等逐一进行了剖析,并针对诉讼机制存在的缺陷,提出了修改刑事诉讼法所应采取的一些具体措施。