| 今朝在我国刑事司法理论傍边对刑事息争停止着普遍的摸索，法语论文网站，但是因为对刑事息争的概念、组成及实质成绩缺少深刻的商量和熟悉，招致了实际和理论两方面的凌乱。本文经由过程对法国刑事息争立法和理论的考核，引出对公诉案件中刑事息争的思虑；由此动身来熟悉今朝国际对刑事息争轨制存在的实际和理论上的误差，并对我国刑事息争轨制的构建提出简单的建议。狭义上的刑事息争可所以一种就刑事案件停止息争的理念，涵盖的规模异常普遍。本文评论辩论的是作为一种轨制形状的广义刑事息争，并将其规模限制在刑事公诉案件傍边。严厉意义上的刑事息争至多包括三个限制：1、息争分歧于调剂，是两边协商而非由第三方居中调和；2、刑事公诉案件是国度对犯法行动人的追诉，所以息争的两边应该是国度公诉机关与犯法行动人两边；3、刑事息争是“就公诉实施息争”，是国度公诉机关与犯法行动人之间就刑事义务停止的协定，着重于对刑事案件中的刑事部门停止息争。刑事息争的直接目标是抢救和赞助一些客观恶性不强、社会伤害性不年夜并自动认罪和确有悔改能够的犯法行动人；基本目标是处分犯法，保证人权一与刑事诉讼的目标雷同。刑事息争处理的是刑事义务成绩，代之以一些处分教导性的制裁。这类的案件现实清晰、证据充分，抢救犯法行动人最完全的措施就是不告状，不给他贴上“罪犯”的标签，所以刑事息争最合适停止的阶段是审查告状阶段。刑事息争的处置措施其实不仅局限于附前提不告状或暂缓告状，刑事息争是一种政策、理念性的称号，详细的措施可所以多样的。从以上剖析我们可以看出，刑事息争是国度公诉机关经由过程行使公诉权，对相符必定前提的刑事案件可以选择实用的处分性公诉替换办法。刑事息争的实质可以懂得为以下三个特点：1、公诉替换性；2、刑事契约性；3、选择性。从1999年起，法语论文，法国曾经在其刑事诉讼法中确立了刑事息争法式(composition penale)，并在实用中赓续修正完美，如今曾经成为一个流利清楚，具有很强的操作性的法式，并在理论中发生了很好的后果。法国事年夜陆法系刑事诉讼轨制的范例，其刑事立法及理论可以赞助我们厘清刑事息争的实质。本文的详细内容分为五章：第一章绪论：成绩的研究现状；第二章引见法国刑事息争的立法与理论状态；第三章剖析和阐述刑事息争；第四章引见我国对于刑事息争的摸索及发明的成绩；第五章对构建我国刑事息争轨制的一些商量。 Abstract: Currently in our country criminal justice theory sideways to criminal interest dispute stop groping in the common, but because of the criminal information concept, composition and substantial achievements lack a profound discussion and familiar, lead to the practical and theoretical aspects of messy. Through the process of the legislation and the theory of the criminal legislation, the paper leads to the consideration of criminal information in the public prosecution case. Therefore, we can find out the error of the current international system of criminal information system, and put forward some suggestions on the construction of criminal information system. In the narrow sense of the criminal interest dispute can be a kind of criminal case to stop the spread of the idea, which covers the size of the anomaly. This paper reviews the debate as a rail system in the shape of a broad concept of criminal information and its scaling limit in criminal cases of public prosecution. Criminal in the strict sense at least comprises three limitations: 1, reconciles differences to adjust is on both sides of the negotiation rather than by a third party centered harmonic; 2, cases of criminal prosecution is country of illegal action of prosecution and so on both sides of the information war should is national prosecution and crime, touching on both sides; 3, criminal information war is "on the public prosecution implementation information war", is a state prosecutor and criminal action between criminal obligation to stop the agreement, focuses on the information of criminal cases in the criminal division. The direct goal of the criminal information war is to save and support some objective and vicious, social harm is not large and automatic confession and repentance can be a crime, the basic goal is to punish the crime, to ensure that human rights and criminal proceedings of the same target. The criminal interest dispute is the result of the criminal obligation, and the punishment of some of the punishment. The reality of the case is clear and the evidence is sufficient, rescue the crime most action is not to complain, not to his stick the label "criminals", so criminal interest struggle the most appropriate stop is examine sue level. Criminal information disposal method in fact is not limited to attached to the premise not to complain or defer to complain, the criminal information war is the title of a policy, idea, the detailed methods can be so diverse. From the above analysis, we can see that the criminal interest dispute is the national public prosecution authorities to exercise the right of public prosecution in the process of criminal cases. The essence of criminal information dispute can be understood as the following three characteristics: 1, the public prosecution replacement; 2, the criminal contract; 3, selectivity. From 1999 onwards, France had in the criminal procedure law established criminal interest dispute French (composition penale), and in the practical continuously revised perfect, has now become the a good clear, with strong operability of the French and in theory occurred very good results. The French civil law system of criminal procedure law, the criminal legislation and theory can help us to clarify the essence of the criminal dispute. This paper is divided into five chapters: the first chapter is the introduction of the status quo; the second chapter introduces the legislative and theoretical status of the criminal legislation; the third chapter analyzes and expounds the criminal information. The fourth chapter introduces the exploration and the achievements of the criminal information system. 目录: |
