本文選題：司法與民意的互動(dòng) + 再審程序　； 參考：《湖南大學(xué)》2012年碩士論文

【摘要】：李昌奎案件是近年來(lái)我國(guó)司法機(jī)關(guān)與民眾極端對(duì)立的一個(gè)典型。本文主要通過(guò)文獻(xiàn)研究法和實(shí)證研究法，探討了本案中的三個(gè)爭(zhēng)議焦點(diǎn)，力圖全面分析法院在本案的處理過(guò)程中的對(duì)與錯(cuò)，為今后法院判決相似案件提供一個(gè)借鑒，從而避免全民否決審判結(jié)果這一現(xiàn)象的出現(xiàn)。 本文從三個(gè)方面討論了該案件，論述了是否該判死刑、是否應(yīng)當(dāng)啟動(dòng)再審程序和本案法院如何面對(duì)民意。本文認(rèn)為，首先，在現(xiàn)有的法制環(huán)境下，找不到李昌奎可以從輕處罰的理由，因而該判死刑立即執(zhí)行；其次，死刑緩期執(zhí)行與死刑立即執(zhí)行都是死刑，差別只在毫厘之間，屬于法院的自由裁量權(quán)范圍內(nèi)，因而二審終審判了死緩，雖然判決書(shū)上的理由不夠充分，但我們也應(yīng)該認(rèn)同和執(zhí)行，法院也應(yīng)該有自信“力排眾議”，除非判決確有錯(cuò)誤，否則不能輕易啟動(dòng)再審程序，同時(shí)本案中再審程序的啟動(dòng)不是出自法院的本意，不是其“主動(dòng)”或者“受啟發(fā)”地“認(rèn)為”原審判決確有錯(cuò)誤，所以再審程序的啟動(dòng)就不合現(xiàn)行法律的規(guī)定，也違反了一事不再理的原則；最后，在本案中司法在與民意互動(dòng)的過(guò)程中做的不好，沒(méi)有起到很好的引導(dǎo)作用，最終形成了尖銳的對(duì)立，，因而本文希望理清民意對(duì)司法的功能與作用，強(qiáng)調(diào)司法在面對(duì)民意時(shí)應(yīng)該更有自信、更主動(dòng)，民意是雜亂的，有時(shí)是不理性的，但民意最終會(huì)趨向理性和統(tǒng)一，所以司法機(jī)關(guān)要加強(qiáng)引導(dǎo)，加強(qiáng)從紛亂的民意中加以篩選和吸收，并通過(guò)一個(gè)個(gè)案例加強(qiáng)民眾對(duì)司法的信任，如此，才能提高民眾的法律素質(zhì)和法律信仰。 本文的創(chuàng)新之處主要有兩點(diǎn)：其一，探討并區(qū)分了“主動(dòng)”認(rèn)為、“受啟發(fā)”認(rèn)為和“被迫”地認(rèn)為，從而得出本案中云南省高級(jí)人民法院?jiǎn)?dòng)再審程序不合法，因?yàn)槠洹氨黄取钡卣J(rèn)為原審程序不合法，這并非出自其本意；其二，強(qiáng)調(diào)司法機(jī)關(guān)要加強(qiáng)自信，雖然要尊重民意，吸收民意，但更要堅(jiān)持其對(duì)法律的理解，只要不是出了非改不可的大錯(cuò)，輕易不能對(duì)民意妥協(xié)，因?yàn)椤胺ü僦粚?duì)法律負(fù)責(zé)”。
[Abstract]:The case of Li Changkui is a typical example of the extreme opposition between the judicial organs and the public in China in recent years. This article mainly through the literature research method and the empirical research method, has probed into the three dispute focal points in the present case, tries to comprehensively analyze the court in the case processing process right and wrong, provides a reference for the future court judgment similar case. In order to avoid the popular veto of the trial results of this phenomenon. This paper discusses the case from three aspects, discusses whether the death penalty should be imposed, whether the retrial procedure should be initiated and how the court in this case should face the public opinion. This article holds that, first, under the existing legal environment, Li Changkui can not find a reason why he can be given a lighter punishment, so the death penalty should be sentenced to execution immediately; secondly, the suspension of execution and the immediate execution of the death penalty are both the death penalty, the difference being only in millimetres. It is within the discretion of the court, so the death sentence is suspended at the end of the second trial. Although the reasons in the judgment are not strong enough, we should also recognize and enforce it. The court should also be confident that it "stands by the masses" unless the judgment is wrong. Otherwise, the retrial procedure cannot be initiated easily, and the commencement of the retrial procedure in this case was not the intention of the court, nor was it "on its own initiative" or "inspired" that "the original trial judgment was indeed wrong," Therefore, the commencement of the retrial procedure is not in accordance with the provisions of the current law, and it also violates the principle of non bis in idem. Finally, in this case, the judiciary did not do well in the process of interacting with public opinion and did not play a very good guiding role. This article hopes to clarify the function and role of public opinion in the administration of justice, emphasizing that the judiciary should be more confident and active in the face of public opinion, and that public opinion is chaotic and sometimes irrational. But public opinion will eventually tend to be rational and unified. Therefore, the judicial organs should strengthen guidance, strengthen the selection and absorption of public opinion from the confusion, and strengthen the people's trust in the administration of justice through one case after another. In this way, In order to improve the people's legal quality and legal belief. There are two main innovations in this paper: first, it discusses and distinguishes between "initiative", "inspired" and "forced", so that the Yunnan Provincial higher people's Court starts the retrial procedure is illegal in this case. This is because it was "forced" to believe that the original trial procedure was illegal, which was not due to its intention. Secondly, it stressed that the judiciary should strengthen its self-confidence. Although it should respect public opinion and absorb public opinion, it should insist on its understanding of the law. As long as it is not a mistake that must be changed, it is easy not to compromise with public opinion, because "judges are only responsible for the law."
【學(xué)位授予單位】：湖南大學(xué)
【學(xué)位級(jí)別】：碩士
【學(xué)位授予年份】：2012
【分類(lèi)號(hào)】：D926;D920.5

【參考文獻(xiàn)】

相關(guān)期刊論文 前5條

1 于淼;;一事不再理原則與我國(guó)刑事再審制度[J];東方企業(yè)文化;2011年14期

2 劉計(jì)劃,李大偉;評(píng)最高人民法院關(guān)于刑事審判監(jiān)督程序的兩個(gè)司法解釋——兼論我國(guó)刑事審判監(jiān)督程序的改革與完善[J];法商研究;2004年03期

3 王歡;;司法獨(dú)立與民意呼聲[J];經(jīng)營(yíng)管理者;2011年21期

4 彭正媛;;對(duì)李普曼《公眾輿論》的新思考[J];新聞世界;2011年04期

5 孫笑俠,熊靜波;判決與民意——兼比較考察中美法官如何對(duì)待民意[J];政法論壇;2005年05期

本文編號(hào)：1843381