论文部分内容阅读
辩护制度一直是各法治国家理论界和实务界关注的焦点问题。我国学者普遍认为美国的辩护制度经历了从形式辩护到实质辩护的发展阶段,即从研究有效辩护转移到了研究辩护的有效性问题上,但让人费解的是,部分学者却不加区分地使用有效辩护与辩护的有效性两个概念,对基本概念的误读极易造成相关问题解决方案误入歧途。急需澄清相关概念,诸如:有效辩护与辩护的有效性、有效辩护与有律师辩护的相互关系。从理论上分化出刑事程序性辩护的有效性的概念在我国有着较为重大的现实意义。
The system of defense has always been the focus of attention of theorists and practitioners in all rule of law countries. It is generally accepted by scholars in our country that the defense system of the United States has undergone a stage of development from formal defense to substantive defense, that is, from the effective defense of research to the validity of research defense. However, it is puzzling that some scholars use it indiscriminately Effective defense and the validity of the two concepts of defense, the basic concept of misreading can easily lead to the solution of the problem go astray. There is an urgent need to clarify related concepts such as the effectiveness of effective defense and defense, the effective defense and the lawyer’s defense. Differentiation of the concept of the validity of criminal procedural defense in theory has more important practical significance in our country.