發(fā)布時(shí)間：2018-05-13 22:24

  本文選題：證明標(biāo)準(zhǔn) + 確信無(wú)疑�。� 參考：《安徽大學(xué)》2014年碩士論文

【摘要】：在現(xiàn)有刑事處罰方式中,死刑作為對(duì)人生命權(quán)剝奪的一種刑罰,十分殘酷,很多國(guó)家已經(jīng)廢止了死刑。在一些保留死刑的國(guó)家中,也對(duì)死刑的適用進(jìn)行了嚴(yán)格的規(guī)定和限制。我國(guó)制定并一直沿用“保留死刑、嚴(yán)格適用”的刑事政策,但是近些年來(lái)發(fā)生的多起錯(cuò)案暴露了我國(guó)在死刑案件證明標(biāo)準(zhǔn)上的一些突出問(wèn)題,如死刑案件中證明標(biāo)準(zhǔn)不科學(xué)、不明確等等問(wèn)題,給錯(cuò)案形成留下了空間。 我國(guó)刑事立法也在不斷的完善中,2010年由最高人民法院、最高人民檢察院、公安部、國(guó)家安全部、司法部聯(lián)合出臺(tái)的《關(guān)于辦理死刑案件審查判斷證據(jù)若干問(wèn)題的規(guī)定》和《關(guān)于辦理刑事案件排除非法證據(jù)若干問(wèn)題的規(guī)定》,對(duì)刑事司法起了積極的作用,但筆者認(rèn)為仍存在一些理論問(wèn)題沒有得到根本解決,對(duì)定案證據(jù)標(biāo)準(zhǔn)仍缺乏明晰界定。 本文通過(guò)分析我國(guó)目前死刑案件證明標(biāo)準(zhǔn)的立法現(xiàn)狀以及司法實(shí)踐存在的問(wèn)題,對(duì)我國(guó)的死刑案件證明標(biāo)準(zhǔn)的學(xué)說(shuō)進(jìn)行考察,提出怎樣對(duì)我國(guó)死刑案件證明標(biāo)準(zhǔn)進(jìn)行重構(gòu),并具體闡述死刑案件證明標(biāo)準(zhǔn)在司法實(shí)踐中的具體運(yùn)用。本文亦嘗試從分析死刑案件證明標(biāo)準(zhǔn)的理論、立法以及司法現(xiàn)實(shí)入手,并借鑒英美等國(guó)和聯(lián)合國(guó)的相關(guān)公約的規(guī)定,來(lái)闡述死刑案件證明標(biāo)準(zhǔn)的本質(zhì),分析我國(guó)死刑案件證明標(biāo)準(zhǔn)的建構(gòu)和發(fā)展趨勢(shì)。 引言主要闡述所涉及的幾個(gè)概念——死刑的發(fā)展歷史、本文研究的意義、本文的研究方法,對(duì)本文的主要范疇進(jìn)行梳理和界定,對(duì)下文討論奠定基礎(chǔ)。第一章對(duì)我國(guó)死刑案件證明標(biāo)準(zhǔn)進(jìn)行了現(xiàn)實(shí)考察。第二章厘清死刑案件應(yīng)確立的原則,其中還介紹了域外刑事證明標(biāo)準(zhǔn),并從中汲取對(duì)我國(guó)死刑證據(jù)標(biāo)準(zhǔn)建設(shè)有借鑒意義的一些理念和制度。第三、四章則著重對(duì)死刑證據(jù)標(biāo)準(zhǔn)體系建構(gòu)進(jìn)行論述,最重要的一點(diǎn)建議是提出我國(guó)死刑案件的證明標(biāo)準(zhǔn)應(yīng)當(dāng)從定罪和量刑兩個(gè)方面加以建構(gòu),嚴(yán)格控制死刑這一刑罰的適用。
[Abstract]:In the existing criminal punishment, the death penalty as a penalty of deprivation of human right to life, very cruel, many countries have abolished the death penalty. In some retentionist countries, the application of the death penalty is also strictly regulated and restricted. Our country has formulated and used the criminal policy of "keep the death penalty, apply it strictly", but in recent years, many wrong cases have exposed some outstanding problems in the standard of proof of death penalty cases, such as the unscientific standard of proof in death penalty cases. Unclear and so on question, left the space to the wrong case formation. In 2010, the Supreme people's Court, the Supreme people's Procuratorate, the Ministry of Public Security, the Ministry of National Security, The regulations on the examination and judgment of evidence for handling death penalty cases jointly issued by the Ministry of Justice and the provisions on the exclusion of illegal evidence from handling criminal cases have played a positive role in criminal justice. However, the author believes that there are still some theoretical problems that have not been fundamentally resolved, and the standard of final evidence is still lack of clear definition. Based on the analysis of the current legislative situation of the standard of proof of death penalty cases in our country and the problems existing in judicial practice, this paper investigates the theory of the standard of proof of death penalty cases in our country, and puts forward how to reconstruct the standard of proof of death penalty cases in our country. And the specific application of the standard of proof of death penalty cases in judicial practice. This paper also tries to analyze the theory, legislation and judicial reality of the standard of proof of death penalty cases, and draw lessons from the provisions of the relevant conventions of Britain and the United States and the United Nations to expound the essence of the standard of proof of death penalty cases. This paper analyzes the construction and development trend of the standard of proof of death penalty cases in China. The introduction mainly elaborates several concepts involved-the development history of death penalty, the significance of the research in this paper, the research methods of this paper, combs and defines the main categories of this article, and lays a foundation for the discussion below. The first chapter has carried on the realistic inspection to our country death penalty case proof standard. The second chapter clarifies the principles that should be established in death penalty cases, which also introduces the standards of extraterritorial criminal proof, and draws on some ideas and systems that can be used for reference in the construction of the standard of evidence of death penalty in China. The third and fourth chapters focus on the construction of the standard system of death penalty evidence. The most important suggestion is that the proof standard of death penalty cases in our country should be constructed from two aspects of conviction and sentencing and strictly control the application of death penalty.
【學(xué)位授予單位】：安徽大學(xué)
【學(xué)位級(jí)別】：碩士
【學(xué)位授予年份】：2014
【分類號(hào)】：D925.2

【參考文獻(xiàn)】

相關(guān)期刊論文 前10條

1 李漢昌,章青山;關(guān)于我國(guó)死刑復(fù)核程序的檢討[J];法商研究(中南政法學(xué)院學(xué)報(bào));2000年02期

2 李建明;死刑案件錯(cuò)誤裁判問(wèn)題研究——以殺人案件為視角的分析[J];法商研究;2005年01期

3 陳興良;;寬嚴(yán)相濟(jì)刑事政策研究[J];法學(xué)雜志;2006年02期

4 黃芳;論死刑適用的國(guó)際標(biāo)準(zhǔn)與國(guó)內(nèi)法的協(xié)調(diào)[J];法學(xué)評(píng)論;2003年06期

5 龍宗智;“確定無(wú)疑”——我國(guó)刑事訴訟的證明標(biāo)準(zhǔn)[J];法學(xué);2001年11期

6 周福民;;我國(guó)確立非法證據(jù)排除規(guī)則的必要性和可行性[J];法學(xué);2007年01期

7 陳瑞華;;定罪與量刑的程序分離——中國(guó)刑事審判制度改革的另一種思路[J];法學(xué);2008年06期

8 趙秉志;;當(dāng)代中國(guó)死刑改革的進(jìn)展與趨勢(shì)——紀(jì)念《法學(xué)》復(fù)刊30周年·名家論壇(七)[J];法學(xué);2011年11期

9 聶昭偉;;我國(guó)死刑案件證明標(biāo)準(zhǔn)的重新選擇[J];法治研究;2008年08期

10 楊宇冠;;聯(lián)合國(guó)死刑政策剖析[J];中國(guó)政法大學(xué)學(xué)報(bào);2009年01期

，

本文編號(hào)：1885094