【作者】 周绪鹏；

【导师】 黄新民；

【作者基本信息】 华中师范大学 ， 诉讼法学， 2011， 硕士

【摘要】 打击犯罪与保障人权是我国刑事诉讼的根本目的,我国1996年修订的《刑事诉讼法》,规定了自诉案件的第三种类型,即被害人有证据证明自己的人身权或财产权受到不法侵害,而公安机关、检察机关不予追究不法分子的刑事责任时,被害人可以直接向人民法院提起自诉。由此可见,我国的刑事追诉模式转变成为“公诉与自诉并存,公诉为主,公诉优先,自诉为辅,自诉救济”双轨制的模式,其本质是赋予被害人自诉权来制约公诉权,实现自我救济,实际上也形成了对“公检法分工负责,相互制约,相互配合”打击犯罪中可能存在的百密一疏之处的恰当补足。我国公诉转自诉的确立并非偶然,有着深刻的制度背景和历史与现实背景。不起诉裁量权的不断膨胀显然不适合我国刑事诉讼的发展趋势,需要通过自诉的渠道对公诉权力进行有效规制,让被害人可以对国家公安机关、检察机关不立案和不起诉的刑事案件进行进一步的追诉,维护自身受损的合法权利。然而,通过十几年的司法实践证明,此制度并没有达到设立的初衷,反而犹如镜中花水中月一般,适用率低下,成功率不高,被害人权利的救济仍旧可望而不可及。当下,群体上访和社会突发性事件层出不穷,社会矛盾凸显,司法机关的公信力严重失衡,社会压力的减压阀更是无从寻觅。有鉴于此,笔者希望通过对我国公诉转自诉这一制度进行具体分析,详尽其来龙去脉,探讨域外相关制度并给予借鉴,分析我国制度设计的根本缺陷,以设计合理的行为模式。并在总结前人研究成果的基础上提出建设性意见,对我国公诉转自诉制度进行重构,以此为化解社会矛盾提供一个可供参照的行为范式,促进社会和谐。本文共分四个部分：第一部分为我国公诉转自诉制度的内涵和成因分析,纵观我国刑事诉讼法,对公诉转自诉制度明文规定不多,仅有第145条和第170条的规定,所以我们有必要对公诉转自诉制度做一个清晰的定义,归纳其特征,丰富其内涵,然后对我国公诉转自诉产生的原因做具体,以形成对公诉转自诉制度一个大致的理论框架。第二部分是对域外相关制度的考察。我国公诉转自诉制度实质上就是对不起诉的规制,因此考察大陆法系对不起诉规制的相关法律制度,便是一条捷径。在德国,不起诉规制经历了一百多年的发展,形成了比较完备的强制起诉制度。由于此制度的设立对被害人保护具有积极的作用,于是大陆法系各国靡然效仿：比如日本的准起诉制度与检察审查会制度等。法国由于其自身的特殊原因则形成了另外一套规制系统。笔者认为有必要对此进行详尽分析与归纳总结来提升我们对公诉转自诉制度的准确认识,理清认识盲点,总结不足,并在此基础上联系国内具体制度实施现状,从而选择有利于我国当下视野的法律移植范式,指导我国公诉转自诉制度的重构。第三部分为我国公诉转自诉制度实施的现状分析及重构的必要性。在对比域外相关制度的基础上细致挖掘我国公诉转自诉制度在实施中面临的困境及原因,由此才可能起到对症下药的功效。公诉转自诉制度在实施过程中必然涉及到检察院、法院及被害人三方主体,笔者将从各个主体所遇到的问题一一归纳,具体分析。然后在分析归纳的基础上从公诉转自诉制度实体、程序等方面进行总结性思考。第四部分为我国公诉转自诉制度的重构,包括原则的确立,具体制度构建,相关外部配套制度的完善等,使之能够为法律实践提供详尽有效的参考。此为本文写作之最终目的。更多还原

【Abstract】 Combating crime and protecting human rights is a fundamental purpose of criminal proceedings, 1996 amendment of the code of criminal procedure, provides for a third type of dealing with the cases, that is, there is evidence to prove their personal right or property right of the victim were wrongful practices, and public security organs, procuratorial organs when criminal liability not to pursue criminals, victims can be brought directly to the people’s court prosecution., private prosecution relief" ladder of mode, its nature is gives victims private prosecution right to restricting public prosecution right,, actually also formation has on "courts Division is responsible for, mutual restricting, mutual tie" combat crime in the may exists of hundred key a soothing of Department of appropriate complement.Establishment of public prosecution to private prosecution in our country is no accident, has deep historical and institutional background and practical background. Swelling of the discretion not to prosecute was clearly not suitable for the development trend of China’s criminal procedure, use the channel public prosecution authority for effective regulation of private prosecution, procuratorial organs not filing and prosecution of a criminal case for further prosecution, damage to maintain their legitimate rights. Now, the groups appealing to social, serious imbalances the credibility of the judiciary, social pressure reducing valve is unable to find it. In view of this, I hope that, through the system of public prosecution to private prosecution in our country specific analysis, detailed the ins and outs, discussion on the related system and to give extraterritorial reference, analysis of China’s fundamental flaws of the system design, to design a reasonable behavior patterns. This article is divided into four parts:First part for in China public prosecution go private prosecution system of connotation and causes analysis, throughout in China criminal procedure method, on public prosecution go private prosecution system expressly does not more, only has 145th section and 170th section of provisions, so we has necessary on public prosecution go private prosecution system do a clear of defined, summarized its features, rich its connotation, and on in China public prosecution go private prosecution produced of causes do specific, to formation on public prosecution go private prosecution system a generally of theory framework.Second part is the study on the outside the system. Public prosecution to private prosecution system in China essentially on the regulation of non-prosecution, so visits continental law system of regulation of non-prosecution-related legal system, is a short cut. In Germany, development of the regulation not to prosecute more than 100 years, forming a relatively complete system of compulsory prosecution. Due to the establishment of this system has a positive effect on victim protection, and civil law countries waste so to follow suit:for example, Japan’s system of prosecution and prosecutorial review. France due to its own special causes the formation of a separate set of regulations system. I believe that there is a need for detailed analysis and conclusion to enhance our awareness of the public prosecution to private prosecution system of accurate, clear understanding of blind spots, lack of summary, on the basis of contact present situation of domestic specific system implementation, thus choice in favour of the country’s current vision of law transplantation model.The third part of the public prosecution to private prosecution system in China and the need for reconstruction. Outside the comparison system on the basis of careful mining system of public prosecution to private prosecution in our country in difficulties and reasons of implementation. Involved in the implementation of public prosecution to private prosecution system in Procuratorate, Court, and tripartite body of the victim, author from each of the main problems encountered by induction, specific analysis. And summarized on the basis of an analysis from the public prosecution to private prosecution system entities, procedures for concluding thoughts.The last part is the reconstruction of the public prosecution to private prosecution system in China, including the establishment of the principle, specific construction system, perfecting the system of external support, so that it is able to provide detailed legal practice effective reference. This is the ultimate goal of writing of this article.更多还原