本文選題：自主性辯護(hù)權(quán) + 律師辯護(hù)權(quán)��； 參考：《江西財(cái)經(jīng)大學(xué)》2017年碩士論文

【摘要】：被追訴人自主性辯護(hù)權(quán)作為實(shí)現(xiàn)公平正義的基石,對保障被追訴人訴訟權(quán)益具有重要作用。但目前我國主要存在立法上對被追訴人自主性辯護(hù)權(quán)保障不足,被追訴人行使自主性辯護(hù)權(quán)和律師獨(dú)立行使辯護(hù)權(quán)之間存在沖突,自主性辯護(hù)權(quán)處于虛化狀態(tài),欠缺對自主性辯護(hù)權(quán)的外部保障等現(xiàn)狀。造成我國被追訴人自主性辯護(hù)權(quán)行使困境的現(xiàn)狀有諸多原因,主要包括被追訴人“客體化傾向”的司法氛圍,自主性辯護(hù)權(quán)內(nèi)容缺失,辯護(hù)律師的作用也被阻隔,被追訴人自身?xiàng)l件不足以及知悉權(quán)與言詞證據(jù)可靠性之間存在矛盾等原因。從我國“尊重與保障人權(quán)”原則,保障被追訴人“辯護(hù)者”的訴訟主體地位,實(shí)現(xiàn)程序正義,增強(qiáng)裁判的可接受性以及發(fā)現(xiàn)案件事實(shí)真相的角度,對被追訴人自主性辯護(hù)權(quán)的保障具有一定的正當(dāng)性和必要性。然而,保障被追訴人自主性辯護(hù)權(quán)有效行使仍存在某些消極影響,如誘使被追訴人實(shí)施妨礙訴訟的行為,增加司法負(fù)擔(dān),不當(dāng)行使自主性辯護(hù)權(quán)還有可能損害其自身利益。因此,我國應(yīng)當(dāng)從以下幾方面保障被追訴人自主性辯護(hù)權(quán)。首先,保障被追訴人的訴訟主體性地位;其次,確立有限度的知悉權(quán),包括建立被追訴人主動(dòng)會(huì)見權(quán)、有限閱卷權(quán)、調(diào)查取證權(quán)等制度,保障辯護(hù)的有效性;然后,對無辯護(hù)律師參與案件中的被追訴人重點(diǎn)保障;再次,避免自主性辯護(hù)權(quán)的行使妨礙供述的可靠性;最后,協(xié)調(diào)被追訴人自主性辯護(hù)權(quán)與律師辯護(hù)權(quán)的關(guān)系,明確律師與被追訴人辯護(hù)權(quán)的相互獨(dú)立性,建立被追訴人與辯護(hù)律師的協(xié)商以及退出機(jī)制。
[Abstract]:As the cornerstone of fairness and justice, the right of independent defense plays an important role in protecting the litigant's rights and interests. However, at present, there is a conflict between the right of the accused to exercise the right of independent defense and the independent exercise of the right of counsel, and the right of independent defense is in a virtual state. Lack of external protection of the right to independent defense, and so on. There are many reasons for the dilemma of the right of independent defense of the accused person in our country, including the judicial atmosphere of the accused person's "objectification tendency", the lack of the content of the right of independent defense, and the function of the defense lawyer is also blocked. The accused person's own condition is insufficient and the contradiction between the right of knowledge and the reliability of verbal evidence exists. In view of the principle of "respecting and protecting human rights" in our country, to guarantee the subject status of the accused "defender", to realize procedural justice, to enhance the acceptability of the referee and to find the truth of the case, It has certain legitimacy and necessity to guarantee the right of independent defense. However, there still exist some negative effects on the effective exercise of the right of independent defense of the accused person, such as inducing the accused person to carry out the behavior of obstructing the lawsuit, increasing the judicial burden, and possibly harming his own interests by improper exercise of the right of independent defense. Therefore, our country should guarantee the right of independent defense from the following aspects. Firstly, to protect the litigant's subjective status; secondly, to establish the limited right of knowing, including the right of active meeting, the limited right to read papers, the right to investigate and collect evidence, and so on, to protect the validity of the defense. Third, to avoid the exercise of the right of independent defense to hinder the reliability of the confession; finally, to coordinate the relationship between the right of the accused and the right of counsel to defend. Make clear the mutual independence of the lawyer and the accused person's right of defense, establish the consultation and withdrawal mechanism between the accused and the defense lawyer.
【學(xué)位授予單位】：江西財(cái)經(jīng)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 康黎;;刑事自辯權(quán)探究[J];法制與社會(huì)發(fā)展;2016年03期

2 謝小劍;;羈押必要性審查制度實(shí)效研究[J];法學(xué)家;2016年02期

3 汪家寶;;論刑事被追訴人的有效辯護(hù)權(quán)[J];政治與法律;2016年04期

4 郭名宏;;論被訴人自主性辯護(hù)的價(jià)值及實(shí)現(xiàn)[J];法學(xué)評論;2016年01期

5 謝小劍;揭麗萍;;論辯護(hù)律師核實(shí)證據(jù)的限度[J];證據(jù)科學(xué);2015年05期

6 郜占川;;論刑事被告人“閱卷權(quán)”及其實(shí)現(xiàn)途徑[J];蘭州學(xué)刊;2015年06期

7 王明芳;傅瀟蕾;;被告人與律師辯護(hù)權(quán)沖突及解決機(jī)制——從李莊案二審談起[J];蘭州大學(xué)學(xué)報(bào)(社會(huì)科學(xué)版);2014年04期

8 蔡杰;劉晶;;刑事卷宗移送制度的輪回性改革之反思[J];法學(xué)評論;2014年01期

9 林喜芬;;中國確立了何種無罪推定原則?——基于2012年刑訴法修訂的解讀[J];江蘇行政學(xué)院學(xué)報(bào);2014年01期

10 陳瑞華;;論被告人的自主性辯護(hù)權(quán)——以“被告人會(huì)見權(quán)”為切入的分析[J];法學(xué)家;2013年06期

相關(guān)重要報(bào)紙文章 前3條

1 趙震;;看守所功能之應(yīng)然定位[N];法制日報(bào);2011年

2 陳瑞華;;律師獨(dú)立辯護(hù)的限度[N];南方周末;2010年

3 趙蕾 ;雷磊;;李莊案辯護(hù):荒誕的各說各話?[N];南方周末;2010年

相關(guān)博士學(xué)位論文 前1條

1 蔣薇;被追訴人程序參與權(quán)研究[D];南京師范大學(xué);2013年

相關(guān)碩士學(xué)位論文 前3條

1 唐學(xué)東;被告人自主性辯護(hù)權(quán)研究[D];西南交通大學(xué);2016年

2 劉珍;辯護(hù)沖突及其解決機(jī)制[D];蘇州大學(xué);2015年

3 吳俊霞;被追訴人自主性辯護(hù)權(quán)研究[D];華東政法大學(xué);2015年

，

本文編號(hào)：1927142