论文部分内容阅读
职权主义诉讼模式是速裁程序的基本属性,它决定了速裁程序中,国家与个人紧张的对立关系,辩诉交易设想缺乏现实基础。速裁程序对效率的提升必须以保障公正价值的实现为前提,因此,速裁程序必须严格遵循“被告人认罪”和“案件情节轻微”两种正当化逻辑,它们是速裁程序设置适用范围与条件的内在依据,同时也是决定速裁程序效率提升的关键性因素。了解刑事简化程序的历史并对之进行比较考察,有助于找准速裁程序的适用目标,以及速裁程序在程序简化程度方面与当前简易程序的差异化定位。明确速裁程序的功能定位,落脚点在于解决实践中的争议问题,包括:速裁程序的适用范围、量刑激励机制的构建、集中式庭审的可行性、证明标准的降低、书面审的可能性、辩诉协商制度的建立、探索一审终审的问题,被告人的程序启动权和强制辩护制度的必要性等若干问题。限于篇幅,本文仅就九个试点实践中的争议热点问题逐一分析,并提出符合速裁程序功能定位的可行性建议。
The mode of litigation of power is the basic property of the process of speed arbitration. It determines the tension between the state and individual in the process of speed arbitration. The conception of plea bargaining lacks the realistic basis. The speedup process must be based on the premise of guaranteeing the realization of fair value. Therefore, the speedup process must strictly follow the two kinds of justification logic of “defendant pleads guilty” and “slight case”, and they are speedy punishments The inherent basis for the application of scope and conditions for setting procedures is also a key factor in determining the efficiency of procedures for speedy proceedings. Understanding the history of criminal simplification procedures and conducting comparative surveys can help identify the applicable objectives of the speed arbitration proceedings and differentiate the speed arbitration process from the current summary procedure in terms of the degree of procedural simplicity. To clarify the functional orientation of the fast-track proceedings, the main objective is to solve the controversial issues in practice, including: the scope of application of the speed-punish procedure, the construction of the sentencing incentive mechanism, the feasibility of centralized trial, the reduction of the proof standard, the possibility of written examination , The establishment of the plea bargaining system, the exploration of the final adjudication of the first instance, the procedure of initiating the defendant and the necessity of compulsory defense system. Due to space limitations, this article analyzes only the hot issues of controversy in the nine pilot practices and puts forward feasible suggestions in line with the functional orientation of the arbitration proceedings.