现行刑事附带民事诉讼制度的内在冲突与协调

【作者】 周轶；

【导师】 李龙；

【作者基本信息】 西南政法大学 ， 诉讼法学， 2007， 硕士

【摘要】 刑事附带民事诉讼的产生是由于公法和私法的竞合所致，将由犯罪引起的民事侵权合并于刑事诉讼一同审理，其立法目的在于减轻诉累，提高诉讼效率，维护司法判决的统一性和严肃性。这一立法思想确有可嘉之处，但是从司法实践来看，刑事附带民事诉讼案件一直属于我国刑事审判实践中较难处理的问题。究其原因，一方面是由于两种诉讼本质上的差异，导致在理论基础、立法设计、司法运行中都产生冲突，附带民事诉讼缺乏独立性，救济范围过于狭窄，对当事人权益保护不足；另一方面，是由于我国对此问题在立法中规定过于简单、笼统，面对当今日益复杂的诉讼局面，尽管有最高人民法院适时出台的司法解释来化解，但在审判实践中仍然存在大量的矛盾和分歧。随着司法制度的逐步完善，程序正义理念的不断弘扬，刑事附带民事诉讼制度立法伊始的价值取向受到了理论与实务界越来越多的质疑。笔者期待通过审视我国现行刑事附带民事诉讼制度的种种弊端，在比较国外相关立法规定、借鉴国内各学者的重构建议基础上，寻求一种能协调各类矛盾、平衡各方利益的最佳途径，以此来实现司法公正，维护法律权威。全文除引言部分外共有四个部分，约三万余字，主要内容如下：一、我国现行刑事附带民事诉讼制度的介绍。该部分首先对刑事附带民事诉讼性质进行界定，笔者从其产生原因、程序启动方式、诉讼中双方当事人地位等几个方面进行思考，将其性质定位为民事诉讼。并基于其民诉性质，提出对现行刑事附带民事诉讼制度内在冲突进行协调的价值取向：保证公平，兼顾效率，抛弃“重刑轻民”思想，力求“刑民并重”。二、现行刑事附带民事诉讼制度内在冲突分析。该部分主要从现行制度与相关司法理念上的冲突以及在具体操作上的困境两方面入手，对其弊端进行分析。由于民、刑两类诉讼目的迥异，相应的程序设计、价值取向不同，当把两个不同目标追求的诉讼置于同一程序中进行时，就产生了一系列违背立法初衷的问题。如：公正与效率的冲突，法律适用的不统一，证据制度的差异，裁判者能力的局限等。同时，由于附带民事诉讼完全依附于刑事诉讼，造成了“重刑轻民”的程序救济思路：片面强调刑事优先，内在排斥附带民事程序的独立性，对当事人程序、实体权益保护不足。这些内在的冲突与局限使改革迫在眉睫。三、对国外相关立法的比较和借鉴。该部分主要通过对国外相关案件的处理方式进行梳理和比较，寻求它们的共同点和相异性，使我国对现行制度的改革能符合刑事附带民事诉讼制度在整个世界的发展趋势。英美国家实行平行模式，此类案件完全在刑事审判结束后，通过单独的民事诉讼解决。大陆法系国家则对附带模式比较青睐，德、法等国都对此制定了详细完备的法律规定，但从实施情况来看，效果却并不令人满意。两种模式虽然相异，但仍存在一些共性。如：支持精神损害赔偿；承认并保障民事救济程序的独立性。这两点对我国现行制度的重构有重要借鉴意义。四、对现行刑事附带民事诉讼制度内在冲突的协调。该部分首先对现有部分学者的改革观点如：“刑事迳行裁判”、“移交民庭处理”等方式进行分析，并在批判吸收这些意见的基础上，提出协调冲突的新构想：以单独提起民事赔偿诉讼为主，刑事附带民事诉讼为辅。增加对精神损害的赔偿请求权，突出被害人的诉讼主体地位，赋予其程序选择权，自主决定进入诉讼的时间，并以法官告知来保障选择权的正确适用。笔者采用列举方式归纳了“民事先行”的案件范围，并将附带民事诉讼的审理范围限制为简单小额案件，同时赋予被害人在刑事案件审理结束后单独提起民事诉讼的权利。在处理附带民事诉讼案件时，继续保留调解原则，让新型处理方法具有可操作性和实用性。最后，鉴于实践中被告人经济能力差、赔偿能力弱小的情况，笔者主张在我国增设被害人“国家补偿制度”，利用国家和社会资源进一步弥补被害人的损失，让法律的保护功能得到真正实现，促进社会和谐。更多还原

【Abstract】 The creation and existence of the Procedure of Civil Suit Collateral to Criminal Proceedings are the results of concurrent existence of the public law and private law, and Procedure is designed to solve the problem of co-existence and undertaking of two kinds of liabilities facing one act violating both criminal law and civil law. The procedure is for reducing the proceedings load, improving proceedings effectiveness, guaranteeing to process the criminal case justly, defending the integrity of the judgment, and maintaining the legal rights of the state, the collective and the victim. Though the legislation idea worth the compliment, the case of civil suit collateral to criminal litigation has been a trouble in the criminal---trial practice of our country. One reason is under the mode of Procedure the conflict and contradiction still exist in the theoretic bases, legislating and judicial practice due to the difference in nature between civil litigation and criminal one; another reason is too brief in the current law. Though the Supreme People’s Court has made judicial interpretations about the procedure, many defects still exist in the judicial practice. Along with the propulsion of the legal construction, the protection of procedure justice is be valued, the worth mindset of the Procedure of Civil Suit Collateral to Criminal Proceedings is queried. Author want to find the conflicts in the Procedure, and draw lessons from foreign experience, to find a new way to balancing and harmonizing the public law remedy and private one, to realize the judicial justice.This dissertation paper is composed of four parts, except for introduction, and the main content is as follows.PartⅠIntroduction of the Procedure of Civil Suit Collateral to Criminal Proceedings. Basis the reason why the victim want to enter the procedure and how to startup it, and what about the status of them, author think the procedure is just a civil suit. So, author proposes to harmonize the intrinsic conflict should follow this merit: give priority to fairness with due consideration to efficiency, discard the neglect of civil procedure, pay the same attention on both criminal and civil proceedings.PartⅡAnalyzing the intrinsic conflicts of the Procedure of Civil Suit Collateral to Criminal Proceedings. For the disparate alms, the legislating and judicial practice between civil litigation and criminal one are different. If we put them together, it must bring many problems. For example: the choose between fairness and efficiency, using laws incompatibly, the difference of the proof, ability of the judge. At the same time, Procedure is completely depended on criminal procedure, which has made a negative effect on its role in whole procedure. The protections for the litigants are not sufficient. So, to reform the Procedure is very urgently.PartⅢIntroduction to this Procedure in other countries. The aim of compare is to find the simitrdes and differentials. In England and America, this Procedure is not exist. In Germany and France, it actualizes also not very well. But there is also some consistent: allow the homicide to institute lawsuit for moral damage; admit the independence of civil remedy. These are useful for the reconstruction.PartⅣTo harmonize the intrinsic conflict in the Procedure of Civil Suit Collateral to Criminal Proceedings. First, author analyze some advice on how to innovate this Procedure, then give the brainchild of myself.: independent civil remedy is based on negatives, and the supplementary civil action in criminal proceedings is auxiliary. Allow the homicide to institute lawsuit for moral damage, and give them the right to choose the time to enter the proceeding. At the same time, endowing the judge with notify duty to guarantee the litigants use choose—right fairly. At last, author advise to establish the institution of "compensating fund", to protect the litigants’right further.更多还原