發(fā)布時(shí)間：2018-01-29 18:54

  本文關(guān)鍵詞： 刑事審判組織 審判權(quán) 審判獨(dú)立 公正 措施　出處：《內(nèi)蒙古大學(xué)》2012年碩士論文　論文類(lèi)型：學(xué)位論文

【摘要】：刑事審判組織的根本職能就是行使刑事審判權(quán),刑事審判組織必須要擁有并能獨(dú)立行使,如果一個(gè)刑事審判組織未能行使完整意義上的刑事審判權(quán),則這種市判權(quán)虛置現(xiàn)象毫無(wú)疑問(wèn)是不合法甚至是非理性的。刑事審判組織獨(dú)立審判的地位沒(méi)有得到保障,最為突出的兩大障礙是院長(zhǎng)、庭長(zhǎng)對(duì)案件把關(guān)制度和案件報(bào)送上級(jí)法院請(qǐng)示制度；同時(shí)人民法院內(nèi)部實(shí)施的案件質(zhì)量評(píng)估體系和刑事量刑規(guī)范化制度等也有礙刑事審判權(quán)的公正行使和被告人權(quán)利保障。合議庭作為最主要的審判組織,合議審判是原則,然而,立法所規(guī)定的必須廣泛適用的合議制審判在司法實(shí)踐中卻發(fā)生嚴(yán)重異化,呈現(xiàn)出“形合實(shí)獨(dú)”的特點(diǎn)；某些地方黨政機(jī)關(guān)領(lǐng)導(dǎo)插手具體刑事案件的辦理,通過(guò)“專(zhuān)案組”、“大三長(zhǎng)會(huì)議”等操控刑事審判權(quán),“以權(quán)馭法”、“未審先定”、“提前介入”等現(xiàn)象見(jiàn)怪不怪,已成為辦理大要案的常態(tài)；重慶打黑過(guò)程中也暴露出一系列干預(yù)刑事審判權(quán)的問(wèn)題；審判委員會(huì)凌駕于刑事審判組織之上“不審而定”,與刑事審判原則相沖突。關(guān)于刑事審判方式改革的問(wèn)題一直充斥刑事訴訟研究領(lǐng)域,從庭審方式到非法證據(jù)排除,以此來(lái)追求審判效果的公正和保障被告人的權(quán)利,而沒(méi)有關(guān)注到導(dǎo)致審判不公正和被告人權(quán)利無(wú)法得以充分保障的一個(gè)主要因素,就是上述現(xiàn)象中反映的刑事審判組織審判權(quán)被“虛置”,審判組織的刑事審判權(quán)未能充分行使。受我國(guó)刊法體制及司法保障機(jī)制的限制,刑事審判權(quán)的行使常常并非法院或法官所能左右,要想改變刑事審判組織審判權(quán)虛置的現(xiàn)狀,要實(shí)現(xiàn)司法公正、司法獨(dú)立、司法效率的價(jià)值目標(biāo),就必須對(duì)現(xiàn)存的一系列不合法的做法予以改變,對(duì)不合理的制度予以糾正充分保障被告人的合法權(quán)利和我國(guó)刑事審判的權(quán)威和公信力,實(shí)現(xiàn)公正審判的價(jià)值目標(biāo)。 筆者以所在法院刑事審判組織運(yùn)行的狀況為突破口,通過(guò)對(duì)本單位的調(diào)研和對(duì)全國(guó)有影響的案件的分析,揭露當(dāng)前我國(guó)實(shí)踐中刑事審判組織市判權(quán)虛置的現(xiàn)狀,認(rèn)為法院內(nèi)部不合理的制度、某些黨政機(jī)關(guān)對(duì)刑事審判權(quán)的干預(yù)、審判委員會(huì)的制約、法院地方化等是導(dǎo)致刑事審判權(quán)虛置的主要因素,進(jìn)而結(jié)合刑事審判權(quán)的基本原理,比較國(guó)外審判組織的先進(jìn)做法和審判獨(dú)立的國(guó)際標(biāo)準(zhǔn),提出了構(gòu)建精英化和職業(yè)化的法官隊(duì)伍、完善陪審員制度、廢除案件請(qǐng)示制度、改革裁判文書(shū)審簽制度、逐步改革審判委員會(huì)等解決刑事審判組織審判權(quán)虛置現(xiàn)象的合理措施。
[Abstract]:The fundamental function of the criminal trial organization is to exercise the criminal jurisdiction. The criminal trial organization must have and be able to exercise it independently, if a criminal trial organization fails to exercise the criminal jurisdiction in a complete sense. Then this phenomenon of false judicial power is no doubt illegal or even irrational. The status of independent trial of criminal trial organization has not been guaranteed, the two most prominent obstacles are the president. The chief judge shall check the case and refer the case to the higher court; At the same time, the case quality evaluation system and the standardized criminal sentencing system implemented by the people's court also hinder the fair exercise of criminal jurisdiction and the protection of the rights of the defendant. The collegial panel is the most important trial organization. The collegial trial is the principle, however, the collegial system, which must be widely applied in the legislation, is seriously dissimilated in the judicial practice, showing the characteristic of "the combination of reality and the independence of reality". Some local party and government organs have interfered in the handling of specific criminal cases by manipulating criminal jurisdiction through "special cases teams," "senior junior meetings," and so on. "early intervention" and other phenomena are not surprising, has become the normal handling of major cases; Chongqing also exposed a series of interference in criminal jurisdiction in the process of fighting against the black; The trial committee is superior to the criminal trial organization "does not try but decides", conflicts with the criminal trial principle. The question about the criminal trial method reform has been flooding the criminal procedure research domain. From the trial mode to the exclusion of illegal evidence, in order to pursue the trial effect of justice and protection of the rights of the accused, and did not pay attention to the unfair trial and the defendant's rights can not be fully guaranteed a major factor. That is, the judicial power of the criminal trial organization reflected in the above phenomenon is "fictitious", and the criminal trial power of the trial organization is not fully exercised, which is restricted by the publication law system and the judicial guarantee mechanism of our country. The exercise of criminal jurisdiction is often beyond the control of the court or judge. In order to change the status quo of the virtual judicial power in criminal trial organizations, the value goals of judicial justice, judicial independence and judicial efficiency should be realized. It is necessary to change a series of existing illegal practices, correct the unreasonable system and fully guarantee the legal rights of the accused and the authority and credibility of the criminal trial in our country. To achieve the value of a fair trial. The author takes the operation of the criminal trial organization in the court as a breakthrough, through the investigation of the unit and the analysis of the cases that have an impact on the whole country. To expose the current situation of criminal trial organization in the practice of virtual judicial power in our country, think that the court internal unreasonable system, some party and government organs to intervene in the criminal trial power, the restriction of the trial committee. The localization of the court is the main factor that leads to the virtual establishment of the criminal jurisdiction, and then combines the basic principle of the criminal jurisdiction, compares the advanced practice of the foreign trial organization and the international standard of the trial independence. Put forward the construction of elite and professional judges, improve the system of jurors, abolish the system of requests for cases, reform the system of adjudication documents. Gradually reform the trial committee and other reasonable measures to solve the criminal trial organization judicial power false phenomenon.
【學(xué)位授予單位】：內(nèi)蒙古大學(xué)
【學(xué)位級(jí)別】：碩士
【學(xué)位授予年份】：2012
【分類(lèi)號(hào)】：D926.2

【參考文獻(xiàn)】

相關(guān)期刊論文 前8條

1 陳瑞華;;正義的誤區(qū)——評(píng)法院審判委員會(huì)制度[J];北大法律評(píng)論;1998年02期

2 公丕祥,劉敏;論司法公正的價(jià)值蘊(yùn)含及制度保障[J];法商研究(中南政法學(xué)院學(xué)報(bào));1999年05期

3 張衛(wèi)平;論我國(guó)法院體制的非行政化——法院體制改革的一種基本思路[J];法商研究(中南政法學(xué)院學(xué)報(bào));2000年03期

4 何家弘;;陪審制度縱橫論[J];法學(xué)家;1999年03期

5 萬(wàn)毅;歷史與現(xiàn)實(shí)交困中的案件請(qǐng)示制度[J];法學(xué);2005年02期

6 姚莉;法制現(xiàn)代化進(jìn)程中的審判組織重構(gòu)[J];法學(xué)研究;2004年05期

7 李衛(wèi)東;法官懲戒制度探討與完善[J];前沿;2003年08期

8 左衛(wèi)民,吳衛(wèi)軍;“形合實(shí)獨(dú)”:中國(guó)合議制度的困境與出路[J];法制與社會(huì)發(fā)展;2002年02期

相關(guān)重要報(bào)紙文章 前1條

1 北京大學(xué)法學(xué)院教授 陳瑞華;[N];人民法院報(bào);2011年

相關(guān)碩士學(xué)位論文 前1條

1 于仲興;審判組織研究[D];中國(guó)政法大學(xué);2008年

，

本文編號(hào)：1474117