【作者】 刘明；

【导师】 闵春雷；

【作者基本信息】 吉林大学 ， 法律， 2004， 硕士

【摘要】 审判阶段的刑事错案的出现对当事人合法权益的损害最为直接也最为严重，因而对其进行防范和制约也就更显必要和急迫。从1992年开始，我国的法院系统便开始实行错案追究制，以期达到防范和惩戒的效果，然而，推行的实际效果并不如人意，因此也引发了人们对错案追究制的一些前提性问题的反思。本文就从反思的角度对刑事错案的若干重要问题进行了探讨。一、错案标准我国在建国以后，由于受苏联绝对职权主义模式的影响，确立了强职权主义模式，在这种诉讼模式下，对诉讼程序公正的轻视和对诉讼的所谓实质真实的追求并存，并认为一个具体的案件只能有一个正确的判决结果，即达到客观真实，否则便是错案，错案标准由此确立。而随着学界的日益繁荣和我国法制体系的逐步完善，学者们对原有的传统观点进行了反思，在反思的过程中出现了多种学说，分为三类：客观说、主观说及主客观相统一说，但各学说均存在缺陷，至今并未形成通说。现行错案标准即客观说有一个默认的前提，即每个案件的正确的判决是唯一确定的，那么，要探讨“正确的判决”是否具有唯一性，三个决定性的环节——法律标准、事实标准、法律适用于具体案件事实的逻辑推理过程——是否具有确定性，便成了必须要探讨的问题。而由于语言本身的模糊性和不确定性以及其他一些因素的影响，法律在其明确性的一面之外，还具有模糊性和不确定性；同时，由于人们认识能力的有限性等原因，法律判决中所依据的案件事实也带有相当程度的不确定性；另外，法律工作者根据案件事实及法律规定来推导司法判决的逻辑推理过程中同样存在着不确定性。这样，法官裁判案件就不可能象小学生做算术题那样只得出唯一的一个答案。因而，现行的错案标准是不足取的。 <WP=52>在对现行错案标准进行否定的基础上，笔者重新界定了错案标准，认为错案是指故意或过失地违背了法律真实的要求，即在实体法律适用或程序履行上违反法律规定的案件，是否有实体错误裁判结果的出现不影响错案的构成及认定。在这一问题上，应考虑客观方面和主观过错两个方面。这里的客观方面并非指实体裁判结果，而是指以“法律真实”取代了“客观真实”之后的客观方面。同时，错案的认定要求办案人员必须有主观上的过错，包括故意与过失两个方面，并且，由于认识上的偏差及水平有限造成错案也应视为过失，应追究其错案责任。最后在错案的认定过程中，并不要求必然有错误裁判结果的出现，“程序错案”也要引起重视，这也是为了体现程序正义的要求。二、错案责任根据哈特对“责任”一词的语义分析，将“责任”一词所包含的虽有联系但不尽相同的意思主要归为四种：角色责任、因果责任、法律上的应负责任及能力责任，笔者将错案责任定位于角色责任，即法官的角色期待来自于“法律世界”，它要求法官以实现法律公正为最高价值取向，其审判活动所应遵循的准则和规范只能是法律。因而，应将错案责任理解为法官违背法律所规定的其职务所要求履行的义务造成错案所应承担的责任。错案责任的归责原则应当包括违法责任原则和过错责任原则，违法责任原则是指法官对自己违反实体法和程序法的规定的行为，应承担错案责任。根据这一原则，法官行为的不合法性是错案责任构成的最终要件。而所谓过错责任原则是指法官故意或过失地违反刑事实体法和程序法的规定不法司法，就要承担相应的错案责任，强调的是主观方面，并且二者密切联系、不可分割，是主客观相一致的关系，应实行违法责任原则为主、兼采过错责任原则的双轨制体系。错案责任的构成是指构成错案责任所必须具备的要件总和，即在何种情形下，法官才承担错案责任的问题。按照归责原则的要求，错案责任的构成要件包括法官行为具有违法性——包括不作为和不当作为、不法作为<WP=53>——法官在主观上有过错以及过错与违法行为之间有因果关系。三、对现行错案追究制的反思我国法院系统内部现行的错案追究制度，试行于20世纪80年代末90年代初。但是，从近些年来的实施情况来看，司法腐败之势并未得到有效扭转，错案纠正也日趋困难，司法公信力仍在逐渐低落，这种与司法公正逆向运行的事实不得不引起我们的反思。现行错案追究制的现状是适“法”不一、与其他法律法规难以协调、实施效果不如人意。不仅如此，错案追究制还引发了其他的一些弊端，带来了许多的负面效应：隐性地损害了当事人的诉讼权利；强化了审判委员会的作用，使“审判分离”现象更为严重；妨害了审判独立和司法权威。由于现行的错案追究制存在着种种致命的缺陷，在操作过程中也并未达到良好的效果，而司法权又需要有一个完善的制度来监督和制约，因而，替代制度的建立与完善就更显急迫。对违法失职的法官进行惩戒是国际社会所通行的一项原则，由于法官操有审判大权，其一旦从事违法甚至犯罪行为，危害性较之其他违法犯罪行为尤甚，因而，英美法系和大陆法系的许多国家和地区都通过立法建立了各具特色的监督机制，以预防或处罚法官的违法犯罪行为。具体到我国而言，为此就要提高法官任职资格的门槛及改革法官选任方式，以实现法官职业化、精英化；从立法指导思想上重视对法官的身份保障?更多还原

【Abstract】 Criminal misjudged case which arises in the phase of adjudication does harm to the parties’ legal rights and interests directly and seriously, so it is necessary and urgent to be on guard and restrict the misjudged case. Our court system has been implementing the system of investigating into misjudged case since 1992, the aim of which is to attain the effect of being on guard and punishment, but the actual effect is not very ideal. Then people begin to rethink the presupposition of the system of investigating into misjudged case. The article discusses some important problems of criminal misjudged case from the aspect of rethinking.Part one is about the standard of misjudged case. In this part, the author discusses three problems. First is the standard of misjudged case under strong inquisitorial system pattern. Here, the author thinks that our country was influenced by absolute inquisitorial system pattern of Soviet Union when established in 1949, so we also set up this kind of strong inquisitorial system pattern which look down upon the procedure and pursuit the objective certainty. Strong inquisitorial system pattern thinks that there is only one right result for a case. That is to say judge must find out objective certainty, or it is a misjudged case. Then the standard of misjudged case is set up. Second is about all kinds of theories. With the development of academic circles and perfection of our legal system, scholars rethink several traditional opinions of many fields. During the course of it, some theories arise. These theories can be divided three categories: objective theory, subjective theory and unified theory. But all these three theories have shortcomings, there is no general theory arise at present. Third is about the author’s opinion. Here, the author denies the standard of misjudged case and thinks that there is a latent presupposition in objective theory. It is that the decision of every case is sole and certain. If we discusses that if right decision is sole, we must discusses whether the three <WP=55>determinative links----legal standard, fact standard, deduction----is certain. But for the ambiguity and uncertainty of language and some other factors, law is both explicit and ambiguous and uncertain. At the same time, for the knowledge ability of people is limited, fact of the case as the basis of the decision has some uncertainty in some degree. Furthermore, there is also uncertainty in the course of deduction which legal workers deduce decision according to fact of case and legal prescription. So judge can’t decide a case like a pupil who works out a problem and gain a right answer. In a word, the present standard is not advisable. Then the author redefines the standard of misjudged case. The author points out that the misjudged case is the case that violates the requirements of legal certainty intentionally or negligently. That is to say it is misjudged case if applying of substantial law and performing of the procedure violate the legal prescription. That if it will give rise to substantial fault result can’t affect the constitution and finding. We should consider both objective aspect and subjective fault. Objective aspect is not substantial result but some result which can be gained after legal certainty replaces objective certainty. At the same time, if we set our mind on misjudged case, there must be subjective fault of judge which include intend and negligence, and negligence should include knowledge deviation and limited ability. Finally, during the course of setting mind on misjudged case, it doesn’t require wrong result, and we should also attach importance to procedural misjudged case which embodies the requirement of procedural justice.Part two is about the responsibility of misjudged case. In this part, the author introduces the summarization of responsibility of misjudged case firstly. According to the semantic analysis of Hart on responsibility, the meaning of responsibility can be divided four categories: role responsibility, causality responsibility, positive responsibi更多还原