【作者】 淡倩；

【导师】 郝银钟；

【作者基本信息】 中国青年政治学院 ， 刑法学， 2007， 硕士

【摘要】 公诉案件撤回起诉,是检察机关对业已起诉至法院的案件提出撤诉请求,法院对其予以审查并作出是否准许的诉讼行为。撤回起诉作为公诉权的一项重要权能,世界绝大多数国家、地区都在不同程度上赋予了公诉机关以撤回起诉的权力。同时,因其与被告人的人权保障息息相关,各国均设置了与之相配套的制度对公诉权的滥用进行预防和限制。在我国,现行刑事诉讼法对于公诉案件撤回起诉没有相关规定,“两高”违背程序法定原则对撤回起诉以司法解释的形式予以确立,且规定过于粗糙,其不合理、不完善之处,导致实践中滥用撤回起诉权的现象层出不穷,使得公诉案件撤回起诉在理论上、实践中都成为一个薄弱环节,亟待从立法角度对撤回起诉予以规范。文章包含以下几部分:第一部分通过对我国公诉案件撤回起诉的历史沿革以及现状的了解,提出我国公诉案件撤回起诉存在的问题并予以分析;第二部分通过对大陆法系、英美法系等国家以及我国香港、台湾地区公诉案件撤回起诉的相关规定予以介绍、进行对比,以期对我国公诉案件撤回起诉的立法起到一定的借鉴作用;第三部分侧重于对公诉案件撤回起诉程序性价值的分析,表明撤回起诉存在的应然性;第四部分则结合我国基本国情,从公诉案件撤回起诉的提起期限、适用情节、加强法院的司法审查职能、撤诉后被告人的身份问题、财产问题、相关涉案人员的救济措施以及撤诉后再起诉等方面提出建议,试在立法层面上对我国公诉案件撤回起诉予以重构并提出几点浅见以供参考。更多还原

【Abstract】 The withdrawal of public prosecution, as an important part of the public prosecution power, most nations in the world give prosecutor the power to decide whether criminal appeals should be withdrawn. In our country, the system of withdrawing the criminal appeals is unsubstantial and laggard in theories, and it is feeble in practice, bringing on a lot of trouble. So there are lots of problems are needed to be solved. Based on borrowing other nations’ and districts’ systems, the author tries to analyze the troubles exist in our withdrawal of public prosecution system and make some suggestions to how to construct our legislation about the withdrawal of public prosecution.In chapter one, based on the history origin and development of the indictment and the understanding of the present condition of withdrawing public prosecution, in the meanwhile, practical questions are listed. Comparing and analyzing the differences between Civil Law and Common Law is made in chapter two and the withdrawal of public prosecution in Hong Kong and Taiwan is also introduced. Chapter three focus on the procedure values, which prove the reasonable existence of the withdrawal of public prosecution. Chapter four put great emphasis on the reform of the withdrawal of public prosecution in the legislation level and also provides the legislation suggestions.更多还原