發(fā)布時(shí)間：2018-02-15 12:04

  本文關(guān)鍵詞： 刑事和解 刑事和解制度 刑事和解制度模式　出處：《中央民族大學(xué)》2017年碩士論文　論文類型：學(xué)位論文

【摘要】：刑事和解是指在加害人與被害人自愿的基礎(chǔ)上,以加害人認(rèn)罪為前提,通過(guò)賠償、道歉等方式取得被害人諒解并達(dá)成和解協(xié)議,司法機(jī)關(guān)根據(jù)案件的具體情況作出不再追究刑事責(zé)任或從輕、減輕刑事責(zé)任的訴訟活動(dòng)。刑事和解制度指圍繞刑事和解所展開的法律規(guī)范的總和。刑事和解是刑事和解制度的核心組成部分,二者具有區(qū)別。刑事和解制度已發(fā)展為世界性刑事運(yùn)動(dòng),設(shè)置意義在于提高被害人權(quán)利保障、有助于加害人回歸社會(huì)以及效率價(jià)值的實(shí)現(xiàn)。傳統(tǒng)刑事和解制度模式分為社區(qū)調(diào)解模式、轉(zhuǎn)處模式、替代模式、司法模式,該模式的劃分已不符當(dāng)代刑事和解制度發(fā)展趨勢(shì),筆者從價(jià)值取向以及和解主導(dǎo)者的角度提出新的劃分方式,將刑事和解制度分為司法機(jī)關(guān)中立模式、司法機(jī)關(guān)主動(dòng)模式、社會(huì)第三方調(diào)解模式,我國(guó)刑事和解制度屬于司法機(jī)關(guān)中立模式。我國(guó)現(xiàn)行刑事和解制度規(guī)定粗陋存在諸多問(wèn)題,刑事和解適用范圍過(guò)窄,將重罪以及涉及到公共法益的部分輕罪排除在外,極大的縮減了適用范圍;司法實(shí)踐中和解方式單一,以賠償物質(zhì)損失為主并通常要求一次性賠付到位,常見的精神性撫慰?jī)H是賠禮道歉,不足以應(yīng)對(duì)不同加害人經(jīng)濟(jì)背景不一的實(shí)際,對(duì)受到不同程度心理創(chuàng)傷的被害人而言僅以加害人口頭致歉無(wú)法重塑心理健康;刑事和解主持人規(guī)定粗陋,我國(guó)僅規(guī)定了刑事和解主持人的范圍,對(duì)主持人如何選任、主持人在和解過(guò)程中具備何種職責(zé)還處于法律空白狀;刑事和解協(xié)議能對(duì)是否追究刑事責(zé)任、量刑產(chǎn)生影響,刑事和解制度的監(jiān)督尤為重要,只有完備的監(jiān)督體系才能避免刑事和解制度異化為辯訴交易、以錢買刑,才能杜絕司法機(jī)關(guān)利用權(quán)力貪污賄賂、以權(quán)謀私的腐敗現(xiàn)象,但我國(guó)關(guān)于刑事和解制度的法律規(guī)定粗陋,導(dǎo)致監(jiān)督體系上出現(xiàn)斷層。針對(duì)我國(guó)刑事和解制度出現(xiàn)的問(wèn)題,應(yīng)當(dāng)按照現(xiàn)代司法觀念設(shè)計(jì)內(nèi)容,同時(shí)要擺脫傳統(tǒng)司法觀念的缺陷實(shí)現(xiàn)加害人、被害人、國(guó)家三者利益的平衡;在適用范圍上適當(dāng)擴(kuò)張,應(yīng)當(dāng)允許部分重罪以及部分涉及公共利益的案件適用刑事和解;構(gòu)建多元和解方式,探索勞務(wù)補(bǔ)償、恢復(fù)原狀、財(cái)產(chǎn)收益轉(zhuǎn)移、代為撫養(yǎng)等賠償方式的可行性,允許高額金錢賠償分期賠付,重視被害人精神創(chuàng)傷的愈合;明確司法機(jī)關(guān)與第三方擔(dān)任主持人的職責(zé)內(nèi)容,為第三方擔(dān)任主持人提供法律知識(shí)培訓(xùn)和調(diào)解技能培訓(xùn);完善刑事和解制度監(jiān)督體系,包括對(duì)被害方與加害方的監(jiān)督以及對(duì)參與刑事和解運(yùn)行過(guò)程的司法機(jī)關(guān)的監(jiān)督,前者主要通過(guò)對(duì)刑事和解協(xié)議的審查來(lái)實(shí)現(xiàn),后者主要通過(guò)發(fā)揮檢察機(jī)關(guān)的監(jiān)督職能來(lái)實(shí)現(xiàn)。
[Abstract]:Criminal reconciliation is to obtain the victim's understanding and reach a reconciliation agreement by means of compensation, apology and so on, on the basis of the voluntary consent of the perpetrator and the victim, taking the guilty plea of the offender as the premise, and by means of compensation, apology, and so on. The judicial organ, according to the specific circumstances of the case, decides not to pursue criminal responsibility or to reduce the criminal liability, Criminal reconciliation system refers to the summation of the legal norms surrounding criminal reconciliation. Criminal reconciliation is the core component of the criminal reconciliation system. The system of criminal reconciliation has developed into a worldwide criminal movement, the significance of which is to improve the protection of the rights of victims. The traditional criminal reconciliation system is divided into community mediation model, transfer model, alternative model, judicial model. The division of this model is not consistent with the development trend of contemporary criminal reconciliation system. From the perspective of value orientation and reconciliation leader, the author puts forward a new way to divide the criminal reconciliation system into the judicial neutral model, the judicial active mode, the social third party mediation mode. The criminal reconciliation system of our country belongs to the neutral mode of judicial organs. There are many problems in the provisions of the current criminal reconciliation system in our country. The scope of criminal reconciliation is too narrow, which excludes serious crimes and some minor crimes involving public interests of law. Greatly reduced the scope of application; judicial practice in the settlement of a single way, mainly to compensate for material losses and usually required a one-off payment in place, the common spiritual comfort is merely an apology, It is not enough to deal with the fact that different perpetrators have different economic backgrounds. For victims who have suffered different degrees of psychological trauma, it is not possible to rebuild their mental health by merely apologizing to the injured person; the host of criminal reconciliation has a crude stipulation. China has only stipulated the scope of the moderator of criminal reconciliation, how to elect the moderator, what kind of responsibilities the moderator has in the process of reconciliation is still in the legal blank; the criminal reconciliation agreement can have an impact on whether to investigate criminal responsibility and to determine the penalty. The supervision of the criminal reconciliation system is particularly important. Only a complete supervision system can avoid the alienation of the criminal reconciliation system into plea bargaining, buy punishment with money, and put an end to the corruption phenomenon of the judicial organs using power, corruption, bribery and abuse of power for personal gain. However, the legal provisions on the criminal reconciliation system in our country are crude, leading to a fault in the supervision system. In view of the problems in the criminal reconciliation system in our country, the contents should be designed according to the modern judicial concept. At the same time, to get rid of the defects of the traditional judicial concept to achieve the balance of the interests of perpetrators, victims and the state, to expand the scope of application, we should allow some serious crimes and some cases involving the public interest to apply criminal reconciliation; To construct multiple ways of reconciliation, to explore the feasibility of compensation methods, such as labor compensation, restitution, transfer of property income, raising on behalf of others, allowing high amount of money compensation to be paid in instalments, and paying attention to the healing of the trauma of the victims; Clarify the responsibility of judicial organs and third parties to act as moderators, provide legal knowledge training and mediation skills training for third parties as moderators, improve the supervision system of criminal reconciliation system, It includes the supervision of the victim and the aggrieved party, as well as the supervision of the judicial organs participating in the process of criminal reconciliation. The former is mainly realized through the examination of the criminal settlement agreement, and the latter is mainly realized by giving play to the supervisory function of the procuratorial organ.
【學(xué)位授予單位】：中央民族大學(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5條

1 李玉潔;楊俊;;再論刑事和解中的被害人權(quán)利保護(hù)[J];河北法學(xué);2015年12期

2 陳學(xué)權(quán);;我國(guó)重罪案件適用刑事和解面臨的挑戰(zhàn)及應(yīng)對(duì)[J];法學(xué)雜志;2015年04期

3 但未麗;;社區(qū)矯正的犯罪學(xué)依據(jù)[J];中國(guó)人民公安大學(xué)學(xué)報(bào)(社會(huì)科學(xué)版);2012年05期

4 何美然;;制度內(nèi)涵的研究溯源與論析[J];職業(yè)時(shí)空;2012年08期

5 陳光中;;刑事和解再探[J];中國(guó)刑事法雜志;2010年02期

相關(guān)博士學(xué)位論文 前2條

1 葉春弟;論監(jiān)獄功能的邊界[D];華東政法大學(xué);2014年

2 田小豐;論刑事和解[D];復(fù)旦大學(xué);2012年

相關(guān)碩士學(xué)位論文 前1條

1 王軍梅;論我國(guó)刑事和解制度的完善[D];中國(guó)政法大學(xué);2014年

，

本文編號(hào)：1513222