發(fā)布時(shí)間：2018-05-13 11:16

  本文選題：刑事法庭前會(huì)議 + 庭審實(shí)質(zhì)化�。� 參考：《遼寧大學(xué)》2017年碩士論文

【摘要】：2012年《刑事訴訟法》確立了庭前會(huì)議制度,對(duì)于提高訴訟效率,維持審判集中審理具有重要意義。因?yàn)橥デ皶?huì)議是審前程序和庭審程序的有效銜接,所以作為法庭審理的過(guò)渡性程序,有必要將庭審實(shí)質(zhì)化的理念融入到庭前會(huì)議中。本文運(yùn)用了比較的研究方法,通過(guò)研究英國(guó)的答辯指導(dǎo)聽審和預(yù)備聽審程序、美國(guó)的庭前會(huì)議制度、法國(guó)的刑事庭前程序、德國(guó)的中間程序,分析優(yōu)缺點(diǎn),總結(jié)對(duì)我國(guó)庭前會(huì)議的啟示,著力完善庭前會(huì)議制度。論文共包括四個(gè)部分,第一部分,通過(guò)庭審實(shí)質(zhì)化的視角引入庭前會(huì)議制度,對(duì)庭審實(shí)質(zhì)化涵義以及內(nèi)容的剖析,引出對(duì)庭前會(huì)議解決問(wèn)題范圍以及效力問(wèn)題的探討。第二部分,通過(guò)對(duì)國(guó)外相關(guān)制度的分析,根據(jù)相關(guān)的啟示對(duì)后續(xù)制度完善作出鋪墊。第三部分,引出我國(guó)庭前會(huì)議在適用過(guò)程中存在的問(wèn)題,信息整合和爭(zhēng)點(diǎn)整理功能定位模糊,被告人參與權(quán)不確定,庭前會(huì)議的主持者規(guī)定籠統(tǒng)以及庭前會(huì)議效力不明確等。第四部分,通過(guò)相關(guān)問(wèn)題的分析,提出完善的建議,明確庭前會(huì)議的功能,確定庭前會(huì)議的主體,規(guī)范結(jié)果的形成和效力以及對(duì)相關(guān)效力事項(xiàng)的異議權(quán)。
[Abstract]:In 2012, the Criminal procedure Law established the system of pretrial meeting, which is of great significance for improving the efficiency of litigation and maintaining the centralized trial. Because the pretrial meeting is the effective connection between the pretrial procedure and the court procedure, it is necessary to incorporate the concept of substantial trial into the pre-court meeting as the transitional procedure of the court hearing. This paper uses comparative research methods to analyze the advantages and disadvantages of the British defense guidance hearing and preparatory hearing procedure, the American pretrial conference system, the French criminal pretrial procedure, and the German intermediate procedure. Summarize the enlightenment to our country's pre-court meeting and try to perfect the pre-court meeting system. The thesis includes four parts. The first part introduces the system of pretrial conference from the perspective of the materialization of the trial, analyzes the meaning and content of the substance of the trial, and discusses the scope and effectiveness of the resolution of the problem in the pre-trial meeting. The second part, through the analysis of the relevant systems abroad, according to the relevant inspiration to improve the follow-up system to make a foreshadowing. The third part leads to the problems existing in the application process of the pretrial conference in our country. The function of information integration and points of contention is vague, the participation right of the accused is uncertain, the presiding officer of the pre-court meeting is general and the effectiveness of the pre-court meeting is not clear, and so on. The fourth part, through the analysis of related problems, puts forward the perfect suggestions, defines the function of the pre-court meeting, determines the subject of the pre-court meeting, the formation and effectiveness of the normative results and the right of dissent to the relevant validity matters.
【學(xué)位授予單位】：遼寧大學(xué)
【學(xué)位級(jí)別】：碩士
【學(xué)位授予年份】：2017
【分類號(hào)】：D925.2

【參考文獻(xiàn)】

相關(guān)期刊論文 前10條

1 樊丙陽(yáng);;刑事訴訟庭前會(huì)議之淺析[J];法制博覽;2016年07期

2 李毅;;公正與效率視野下的庭前會(huì)議[J];重慶廣播電視大學(xué)學(xué)報(bào);2016年01期

3 汪海燕;于增尊;;預(yù)斷防范:刑事庭審實(shí)質(zhì)化訴訟層面之思考[J];中共中央黨校學(xué)報(bào);2016年01期

4 蔣廬雯;;刑事庭前會(huì)議中的非法證據(jù)排除方式[J];法制與社會(huì);2016年01期

5 張燕龍;;庭前會(huì)議程序的銜接機(jī)制研究[J];法學(xué)雜志;2015年12期

6 方燕;;刑事庭前會(huì)議程序?qū)嵺`的檢視與修正[J];山東審判;2015年06期

7 李相峰;任紅梅;;也談庭前會(huì)議的適用范圍[J];中國(guó)檢察官;2015年23期

8 衛(wèi)躍寧;宋振策;;論庭審實(shí)質(zhì)化[J];國(guó)家檢察官學(xué)院學(xué)報(bào);2015年06期

9 項(xiàng)谷;張菁;樊彥敏;;庭前會(huì)議制度的實(shí)踐與完善[J];人民檢察;2015年20期

10 董林濤;;實(shí)質(zhì)庭審:日本證據(jù)開示制度改革介評(píng)[J];公安學(xué)刊(浙江警察學(xué)院學(xué)報(bào));2015年04期

相關(guān)重要報(bào)紙文章 前2條

1 朱孝清;;庭前會(huì)議的定位、權(quán)限和效力[N];檢察日?qǐng)?bào);2014年

2 劉靜坤;楊波;;庭前會(huì)議制度的具體構(gòu)建[N];人民法院報(bào);2012年

，

本文編號(hào)：1882921