本文選題：違法羈押 + 救濟權(quán)��； 參考：《西南政法大學》2014年碩士論文

【摘要】：審前羈押作為刑事訴訟中追訴犯罪的有效手段，有其適用的正當性和必要性，但若羈押權(quán)力操作不當，極易侵犯被羈押者的合法權(quán)利。在我國審前羈押制度中，錯誤羈押、任意羈押、超期羈押現(xiàn)象一直長期存在，而刑事訴訟中卻缺乏對此類違法羈押的有效救濟機制，雖然2012年《刑事訴訟法》對包括審前羈押制度在內(nèi)的刑事強制措施進行了較大幅度的修改和完善，但修改后的《刑事訴訟法》并未觸及到審前羈押制度中的根本性缺陷，依舊很難改變當前違法羈押中救濟機制整體缺失的狀況。因此，在對我國現(xiàn)行審前違法羈押救濟機制進行深刻反思的基礎(chǔ)上，進一步研究和探索切實可行的完善方案，已成為現(xiàn)階段審前違法羈押救濟機制改革中亟待解決的問題。 本文除引言和結(jié)語外，正文分為三個部分，約三萬三千余字。 第一部分論述了被羈押者救濟權(quán)利的基本內(nèi)容。被羈押者救濟權(quán)是指受到審前羈押的犯罪嫌疑人、被告人就羈押的合法性、必要性和比例性等問題依法向有關(guān)機關(guān)提出申請，要求有關(guān)機關(guān)對羈押的合法性、必要性和比例性等問題進行公正裁決，以保障其人身自由免受非法侵害的權(quán)利。賦予被羈押者救濟權(quán)是基于無罪推定原則、人權(quán)保障理念和正當程序的要求。被羈押者救濟權(quán)具體包括申請取保候?qū)彊?quán)、申請羈押復(fù)查權(quán)、申請釋放權(quán)、獲得國家賠償權(quán)等等。 第二部分分析了我國審前違法羈押救濟機制存在的問題以及問題的形成原因。首先，被羈押者可救濟的權(quán)利十分有限；其次，對于審前違法羈押以行政性的救濟方式為主，并不存在嚴格意義上的司法救濟機制；最后，救濟程序的規(guī)定具有模糊性，缺乏可操作性，救濟效果不甚理想。造成上述問題的原因在于制度因素、立法因素、案件因素三個方面：我國現(xiàn)行的刑事訴訟制度中，沒有形成“審判中心主義”的訴訟模式，法院無法介入審判前的訴訟活動，也就無從實施任何形式的司法審查，因此，對于審前違法羈押，我國并不存在嚴格意義上的司法救濟；從立法方面來看，在審前羈押制度中沒有真正確立羈押比例原則，羈押不是一種獨立的強制措施，而是拘留、逮捕后的當然狀態(tài)，這種羈押依附于拘留、逮捕的立法設(shè)計，使得司法機關(guān)很難就違法羈押行為本身提供有效救濟途徑；此外，在司法實踐中，辦案機關(guān)采用羈押性強制措施所帶來的訴訟“收益”遠大于付出的“成本”，并且，對于違法羈押行為幾乎沒有訴訟“風險”，使得辦案機關(guān)對于提供違法羈押救濟的內(nèi)在動力明顯不足。 第三部分論述了完善審前違法羈押救濟機制的基本構(gòu)想。完善審前違法羈押救濟機制的前提條件在于：首先從訴訟觀念和立法方面真正確立羈押比例原則，改變現(xiàn)行審前羈押期限“一刀切”的局面，并保障被羈押者的知悉權(quán)，明確司法機關(guān)對被羈押者的權(quán)利告知義務(wù)，完善被羈押者的基礎(chǔ)性權(quán)利；其次，在具體制度設(shè)計上，一方面從“權(quán)利制約權(quán)力”的角度出發(fā)，借2012年《刑事訴訟法》完善辯護制度的契機，擴大辯護權(quán)在審前羈押決定中的影響，充分發(fā)揮辯護律師在審前羈押程序中的積極作用。另一方面從“權(quán)力制約權(quán)力”的角度出發(fā)，加強檢察機關(guān)的法律監(jiān)督職能，樹立檢察官在審前羈押程序中的裁判者角色，完善羈押必要性審查制度，建立聽證式的羈押復(fù)查程序，賦予被羈押者充分參與審查程序的權(quán)利；最后，在配套措施方面，進一步完善現(xiàn)行取保候?qū)徶贫�，充分發(fā)揮取保候?qū)彽牧b押替代功能。同時建立針對違法羈押的制裁機制，相應(yīng)地增加違法羈押實施的“成本”和“風險”，以達到糾正違法羈押，保護被羈押者人權(quán)的目的。
[Abstract]:Pretrial detention, as an effective means of prosecuting crime in criminal proceedings, has its legitimacy and necessity, but if the detention power is not properly operated, it is easily infringed on the legal rights of the detainees. In our pretrial detention system, the false detain, arbitrary detention, and overdue custody have long existed, but in criminal proceedings there is a lack of such a kind. The effective remedy mechanism of illegal detention, although the criminal procedure law in 2012 has greatly modified and perfected the criminal compulsory measures including the pretrial detention system, but the revised "Criminal Procedure Law" does not touch the fundamental defects in the pretrial detention system, and it is difficult to change the current relief mechanism in the current illegal detention. Therefore, on the basis of deep reflection on the current pretrial detention relief mechanism in China, further research and exploration of practical and feasible scheme have become an urgent problem in the reform of the remedies for the present stage of illegal detention.
In addition to the introduction and conclusion, the text is divided into three parts, about 33000 words.
The first part discusses the basic content of the right of the remedies for the detainees. The remedies of the detainees refer to the suspects who have been detained before the trial. The defendants will apply for the legality, necessity and proportionality of the detention to the relevant organs according to law, and require the relevant organs to carry out public issues on the legality, necessity and proportionality of detention. The right to protect personal freedom from illegal infringement is to ensure the right of the detainees on the basis of the principle of presumption of innocence, the concept of human rights protection and the requirements of due process. The remedies of the detainees include the right to apply for the bail pending trial, apply for the right to recheck the detention, apply for release, and obtain the right of state compensation and so on.
The second part analyzes the existing problems of the pretrial detention relief mechanism in China and the reasons for the formation of the problems. First, the rights of the detainees can be very limited. Secondly, there is no strict judicial relief mechanism in the strict sense of the judicial relief mechanism in the strict sense. The cause of the above problems lies in three aspects: system factors, legislative factors, and case factors: in our country's current criminal procedure system, there is no "trial centralism" litigation mode, the court can not intervene before the trial, and it will not carry out any practice. In the form of judicial review, therefore, there is no strict judicial relief in our country for pretrial detention. From the legislative point of view, there is no real establishment of the principle of detainment in the pretrial detention system. Detention is not an independent coercive measure, but detention, of course after arrest, which is attached to detention. The legislative design of arrest makes it difficult for the judicial organ to provide effective remedy for the illegal detention itself. In addition, in judicial practice, the "income" brought by the detention compulsory measures is far greater than the "cost" in judicial practice, and there is almost no "risk" for the illegal detention, making the case a case of handling a case. The internal motivation for the provision of illegal detention is obviously insufficient.
The third part expounds the basic conception of perfecting the relief mechanism of pretrial illegal detention. The premise of perfecting the relief mechanism of pretrial detention lies in the following: first, we should establish the principle of the proportion of the detainment ratio in the legal and legislative aspects, change the situation of the "one size fits all" in the current pretrial detention period, and ensure the right of the detainees to know, and make clear the Department. The legal organs inform the rights of the detainees and improve the basic rights of the detainees. Secondly, on the basis of the design of the specific system, on the one hand, from the angle of "right restriction of power", the influence of the right of defense in the decision of pretrial detention is enlarged by the opportunity of "the criminal procedure law" in 2012 to improve the defense system and to give full play to the defense lawyer. On the other hand, on the basis of the positive role of the pretrial detention procedure, on the other hand, from the angle of "power restricting power", the legal supervision function of the procuratorial organs should be strengthened, the role of the prosecutor in the pretrial detention procedure is set up, the examination system of the necessity of detention is perfected, the procedure of hearing and custody reexamination is established, and the detainees are given full participation in the trial. In the end, in the supporting measures, we should further improve the existing bail pending trial system and give full play to the detaining alternative function of the bail pending trial. At the same time, establish the sanctions mechanism for the illegal detention, and increase the "cost" and "risk" of the illegal detention in order to correct the illegal detention and protect the human rights of the detainees. The purpose.
【學位授予單位】：西南政法大學
【學位級別】：碩士
【學位授予年份】：2014
【分類號】：D925.2

【參考文獻】

相關(guān)期刊論文 前10條

1 薛z，

本文編號：2060430