本文選題：刑事訴訟 + 庭前會議　； 參考：《遼寧大學》2014年碩士論文

【摘要】：隨著新刑事訴訟法第一百八十二條的頒布，我國也建立了具有中國特色的刑事庭前會議制度。這是我國刑事訴訟程序的重大突破。也是增強控辯交鋒的表現。對于保障人權和懲罰犯罪具有重要意義。庭前會議程序彰顯了提高訴訟效率、保障人權以及實現審判公正的價值。在提高訴訟效率方面。庭前會議通過對證據整理能夠縮減開庭審理的時間；通過對程序性問題審查保障庭審的連貫性。在保障人權方面。庭前會議通過審查羈押期限和非法證據排除保障被告人權利。在實現審判公正方面。庭前會議通過被告人及其辯護人的積極參與保障了審判的公正性。境外關于刑事庭前會議程序的立法實踐相對完善，本文以英美為例分析了當事人主義模式下的庭前會議的特點，同時概括出值得借鑒的方面。又以法德為重點歸納了職權主義模式下庭前會議的立法形式。最后對日本和我國臺灣地區(qū)的庭前會議程序加以分析，吸納可以借鑒的經驗。當然我國的庭前會議程序有著自身的特點。它不同于境外的預審程序，也不等同于證據開示制度。而是具有自身特點的刑事庭前會議制度。在各地一年的司法實踐中，庭前會議被廣泛運用，得到了良好效果。 但是由于初次立法以及實踐經驗的欠缺，也產生了許多問題。例如庭前會議的效力沒有明確的規(guī)定；對于庭前會議的適用范圍列舉的不夠全面；主持庭前會議的主體存在爭議；法律責任的承擔有所遺漏；以及庭前會議是否公開進行，，會議的次數、方式都沒有細化的規(guī)定。這些問題都需要在理論與實踐中找到答案，使阻礙庭前會議發(fā)展的因素逐漸減少。最后筆者從非法證據的排除、庭前會議的效力和法律監(jiān)督三方面，提出了完善的建議。首先非法證據的排除關乎到案件實體審理的公正性，也關系到被告人訴訟權利的保障。庭前會議程序應當如何定位，發(fā)揮何種作用都需要法律及司法解釋的進一步明確。其次庭前會議的效力是學者們討論非常集中的熱點。良好的制度如果沒有強制力的保障很難發(fā)揮應有的效果。因此如何授權于庭前會議也是重點需要解決的難題。最后不容忽視的便是法律監(jiān)督。只有是庭前會議程序在法律監(jiān)督的機制下發(fā)展，才能越走越遠。在實踐中，人民檢察院與人民法院也應當及時轉變工作方式，加強有關刑事庭前會議的理論學習，增強程序意識和權利意識。同時辯護人也發(fā)揮著重要的作用。涉及閱卷權的行使，對程序性問題的提出異議以及對證據進行展示等工作。因此辯護人制度也需要進行相應配套體系的完善。希望本文能夠為我國刑事庭前會議程序的完善作出貢獻。使其進一步在提高訴訟效率、保障人權和實現審判公正方面發(fā)揮應有的價值。
[Abstract]:With the promulgation of Article 182 of the new Criminal procedure Law, China has also established the system of pre-court meeting with Chinese characteristics. This is a major breakthrough in our criminal procedure. It is also an enhancement of the performance of the prosecution and debate. It is of great significance for the protection of human rights and the punishment of crimes. The procedure of pre-trial meeting demonstrates the value of improving the efficiency of litigation, protecting human rights and realizing justice of trial. In improving the efficiency of litigation. Pre-court meetings can reduce the length of hearings by collating evidence and ensuring continuity by examining procedural issues. With regard to the protection of human rights. The pretrial meeting protects the rights of the accused by examining the duration of detention and the exclusion of illegal evidence. In order to achieve justice in the trial. The trial fairness was ensured by the active participation of the accused and their defenders. The legislative practice of the criminal pretrial meeting procedure abroad is relatively perfect. This paper takes Anglo-American as an example to analyze the characteristics of the pretrial meeting under the mode of litigant doctrine, and generalizes the aspects that are worth using for reference at the same time. It also sums up the legislative form of the pre-court meeting in the mode of authority-doctrine with emphasis on France and Germany. Finally, this paper analyzes the procedure of the pre-trial meeting in Japan and Taiwan, and draws on the experience that can be used for reference. Of course, our country's pre-court meeting procedure has its own characteristics. It is different from the pretrial procedure outside the country, nor is it equal to the system of discovery of evidence. It is the pre-court meeting system with its own characteristics. In the judicial practice of one year, the pre-court meeting has been widely used and got good results. However, due to the lack of initial legislation and practical experience, there are also many problems. For example, the validity of the pre-trial meeting is not clearly defined; the scope of application of the pre-trial meeting is not comprehensive enough; the subject presiding over the pretrial meeting is controversial; the legal liability is omitted; and whether the pretrial meeting is held in public, There are no detailed rules on the number and manner of meetings. These questions need to be answered in theory and practice, so that the factors hindering the development of pre-trial meeting are gradually reduced. Finally, the author puts forward some suggestions from three aspects: the exclusion of illegal evidence, the effectiveness of the pretrial meeting and the legal supervision. Firstly, the exclusion of illegal evidence is related to the fairness of the case and the protection of the defendant's right of action. How to position and how to play a role need further clarification of law and judicial interpretation. Secondly, the effectiveness of the pre-court meeting is a hot topic for scholars to discuss. It is difficult for a good system to play its due effect without the guarantee of force. Therefore, how to authorize the pre-court meeting is also a key problem to be solved. The last thing that can not be ignored is legal supervision. Only when the pretrial meeting procedure develops under the mechanism of legal supervision, can it go further and further. In practice, the people's procuratorate and the people's court should change their working methods in time, strengthen the theory study of the criminal court meeting, and strengthen the consciousness of procedure and right. At the same time, defenders also play an important role. It involves the exercise of marking right, the objection to procedural issues and the presentation of evidence. Therefore, the defense system also needs to improve the corresponding supporting system. It is hoped that this paper will contribute to the perfection of the pre-court meeting procedure in our country. So that it can further improve the efficiency of litigation, protect human rights and realize the justice of trial.
【學位授予單位】：遼寧大學
【學位級別】：碩士
【學位授予年份】：2014
【分類號】：D925.2

【參考文獻】

相關期刊論文 前10條

1 汪建成;;刑事審判程序的重大變革及其展開[J];法學家;2012年03期

2 王圣揚;;刑事庭前程序中的權力(利)配置研究[J];法治研究;2011年02期

3 卞建林;褚寧;;刑事訴訟法修改背景下一審程序的完善[J];法律適用;2012年09期

4 邱曉晴;;新刑訴法關于庭前會議規(guī)定淺讀[J];法制博覽(中旬刊);2013年04期

5 孫振;;庭前會議程序與審前非法證據的排除[J];研究生法學;2013年02期

6 叢華;;論我國刑事庭前審查程序的獨立建構[J];北京人民警察學院學報;2012年03期

7 楊波;;非法證據排除規(guī)則適用程序研究——以庭審程序為核心的分析[J];中國刑事法雜志;2011年09期

8 陳衛(wèi)東;杜磊;;庭前會議制度的規(guī)范建構與制度適用——兼評《刑事訴訟法》第182條第2款之規(guī)定[J];浙江社會科學;2012年11期

9 譚世貴;;訴訟效率視角下《刑事訴訟法》的修改與進一步完善[J];浙江社會科學;2012年11期

10 張倩;劉靜坤;;庭前會議程序在實踐中的展開[J];中國審判;2012年04期

本文編號：2090167