【作者】 雷春；

【导师】 左卫民；

【作者基本信息】 四川大学 ， 诉讼法， 2006， 硕士

【摘要】 本文是对我国的刑事自诉案件开展调查研究，目的是探究自诉制度在司法实践中的运行状态，研究司法与立法之间可能的差异，并探求造成这种可能差异的实证因素。为了使调查更具有准确性和代表性，我选择了四川省内五个发展水平有差异的区县作为调查范围，它们是成都市温江区、泸州市泸县、泸州市叙永县、宣宾市翠屏区和宜宾市兴文县。调查一是采取查阅法院历年自诉案件档案的方法，从中提取自诉案件审理过程中的各种静态信息；二是访谈当地的刑事审判法官以及检察官等司法人员，与之探讨自诉案件的许多动态信息。通过调查，获得五地共709件自诉案件资料和司法人员提供的大量第一手访谈材料。在这样的基础上，通过对自诉案件范围、一审处理结果、一审审判组织情况、一审代理辩护情况、二审审理情况的统计分析，发现实践中自诉程序有如下特点：自诉案集中在10个罪名，自诉案件的范围很小；没有公诉转自诉案件；判决在自诉案件的审理中仍然占有重要地位，其中有罪判决占大多数；调解是自诉案件结案的主要方式，但是各地调解制度在运行中都不规范也不统一；被告人逃跑的案例在某些地方有增多的趋势，中止审理的自诉案随之增加；多种因素导致法院更多的以合议庭来审理自诉案件，而较少独任审判和适用简易程序；自诉案件当事人对诉讼代理和辩护制度的利用率不高；二审自诉案件的处理方式灵活等等。同时也发现各地在司法实践中，有时候会对法律规范中的自诉制度进行某种变通，以更好的适应当地的环境，这方面的情况有：变被告人逃跑后的裁定中止审理为劝说自诉人撤诉，并赋予自诉人再次起诉的权利；变当事人自愿接受调解为法庭游说或者要求当事人同意调解；以当事人和解的形式代替法庭调解的实质，减少法院的负担等等。本文随之分析了自诉程序在实践中呈现上述特点和变通的各种制度性和社会性的原因，正是这些现实中的原因，使实践上的自诉程序在一些方面不同于最初的制度设计，也使法律理论同法律务实之间产生了距离。针对公诉转自诉案件一直以来的争议性，本文还通过个案分析，来专门讨论公诉转自诉案件之所以没有在我调查的范围内出现的那些细微的(但是对当事人往往更直接)原因。通过调查而展开的分析研究表明，根据实际情况对我国现行的自诉制度进行相应的检讨和完善是十分必要的，这些方面包括合理的缩小自诉案件的范围、规范自诉案件调解的程序、制定适合自诉特点的专门诉讼程序、改革公诉转自诉次序、探讨刑事自诉的缺席审判制度等等。这将构成我国研究自诉制度的主要内容。更多还原

【Abstract】 This thesis is to investigate self-incriminating criminal cases in our country, which intents to explore the running state of self-incriminating system in the judicial practice, study the possible differences between judicature and legislation, and search causes of the possible differences.For the veracity and representativeness of the investigation, I selected five counties with different developing levels: Wenjiang Section in Chengdu city, Lu County in Luzhou city, Xuyong County in Luzhou sity, Cuiping Section in Yibin city and Xingwen County in Yibin city.First, I consulted archives of self-incriminating cases in court during past years, which showed all kinds of static information in inquisition.Second, I interviewed local judges and procurators, which gave me a lot of dynamic information.Through investigation, I got the materials of 709 self-incriminating cases in five counties and lots of firsthand materials offered by judicial functionary.Then with statistical analysis of the range of self-incriminating cases, the results of the first instance, the judicial organization of the first instance, the surrogate and advocacy of the first instance and of the second instance, I found, in practice, the self-incriminating cases have the following characteristics:The range of self-incriminating cases is small which mainly focus on 10 imputations; no public prosecution into private prosecution; the verdicts still lie a very important position, among which are lots of guilty verdicts; intermediation is the main way in ending a case, however, the intermediation system is not normative in practice; the cases of defendant’s escape is increasing, as a result, the suspension of private prosecution is also increasing; the court more depend on collegial bench, and less summary procedure; the party make less use of the system of surrogate and advocacy; the methods of processing mode are flexible in the second instance, etc.At the same time, I also found, in practice, sometimes the system of self-incriminating will be changed to better fit local conditions. For instance, they change the suspension after defendant’s escape to persuade private prosecutors into nolling prosequi, and endow them with the right of prosecution once again; they change that the party accept mediations with their own wills to the court persuade the party into agreeing mediation; they use the form of the party’s pacification instead of the substance of the court’s mediation in order to lessen the court’s burden.And then, the thesis analyzed the above characteristics and various social causes of versatility. Just the causes in reality make the self-incriminating procedure different with the initial design in some cases, and also produced the distances between theory and practice in law.Aiming at the disputation of public prosecution into private prosecution, the thesis especially discussed why there are no hairlike reasons of public prosecution into private prosecution in my investigation rangeWith the analysis, I made the conclusion that it is necessary to review and perfect the present self-incriminating system in our country, which conclude: reducing the range of self-incriminating cases rationally, regulating the mediation of self-incriminating procedure, constituting the special proceedings with appropriate characteristics of private prosecution, reform the procedure of public prosecution into private prosecution, exploring the system of the judgment by default in self-incriminating criminal cases, etc. All of these are the main contents of the study of self-incriminating system in our country.更多还原