Home >

Death Penalty Review And Supreme Procuratorate Should Break The Silence

2011/9/27 14:47:00 52

??? 日本語 Fran?ais English 中文

Death Penalty Review Supreme Procuratorate

Amendment of criminal procedure: the Supreme Procuratorate should review the death penalty.

Members of the Standing Committee on how to improve the trial procedure

Improving the efficiency of litigation and ensuring judicial justice

The criminal procedure law, which was first considered by the twenty-second session of the eleven NPC Standing Committee held recently, was brought up. Amendment In order to better allocate the judicial resources and improve the efficiency of litigation, the draft will distinguish the different circumstances of the case under the premise of ensuring judicial fairness and further improve the judicial procedure.

Members of the Standing Committee and the people attending the meeting generally expressed their approval of the draft provisions on trial procedure, and also put forward some suggestions for further improvement.

Review of death penalty should be made in the Supreme Procuratorate.

The draft added regulations: "the Supreme People's court should review the death penalty cases and interrogate the defendants and listen to the opinions of the defenders." "In the process of reviewing death penalty cases, the Supreme People's Procuratorate may submit opinions to the Supreme People's court."

"It is stipulated that in the review of death penalty cases, the Supreme People's Procuratorate may have little significance to submit opinions to the Supreme People's court." According to Dai Yuzhong, the parties concerned can also make comments in reviewing the death penalty cases. The Supreme People's Procuratorate is the highest organ of the state's legal supervision. It is suggested that in the review of death penalty cases, the Supreme People's court should listen to the opinions of the Supreme People's Procuratorate, and the Supreme People's Procuratorate shall put forward opinions so as to give play to and reflect the role, status and function of the supreme procuratorial organ in the review of death sentences.

Li Lianning also said that the draft stipulates that "in the process of reviewing death penalty cases, the Supreme People's procuratorate can make comments to the Supreme People's court", which is too weak. The draft stipulates that when reviewing the death penalty cases, the defendant should be asked to listen to the opinions of the counsel, and to the Supreme People's Procuratorate becomes a "yes". position Not quite right.

"The review of death penalty involves major criminal offences, and we should improve the legal supervision over its review." Li Lianning members believe that supervision of death penalty review should be an important task in procuratorate's legal supervision. In the course of reform of the judicial system, the contents of the reform of the legal procedure for improving the review of death sentences also clearly stated that "the Supreme People's court does not approve the death penalty, or it can not be approved for a long time. It should inform the Supreme People's procuratorial organs and listen to opinions". The draft should stipulate that "the Supreme People's court should listen to the opinions of the Supreme People's Procuratorate" rather than "the Supreme People's procuratorate can make suggestions".

Jiang Xingchang said that the new increase in the draft is very necessary, but it is suggested that we should make some adjustments. Because of the limited resources of the Supreme People's court and the vast territory of our country, the traffic in some places is not very convenient. It is difficult to interrogate the defendants in every case of death penalty approval. At the same time, from the perspective of saving the national judicial resources, it is unnecessary to interrogate all the defendants on the basis of the work done in the preceding litigation process.

Jiang Xingchang suggested that the following amendments should be made. "The Supreme People's court should review the case of death penalty, and if it wants to approve the death penalty, it should interrogate the accused and listen to the opinions of the defenders."

Kang Wei Min, deputy to the National People's Congress, who was present at the meeting, proposed that the provisions on the death penalty review system should be increased by one. article 。 But the increase is not enough. How to further open and further democracy in the death penalty review system still needs to be refined.

Provision of evidence for exchanging evidence before court

The draft stipulates that before a court session, a judicial officer may convene prosecutors, litigants and defenders, and agents ad litem to understand the situation related to trials, such as evading, appearing on the list of witnesses in court, and excluding illegal evidence, and listening to opinions.

"This has added the preparatory procedure before the court. This design is very good." Zhou Guangquan, a member of the National People's Congress Law Committee, said that before the court session, the examiners could convene prosecutors, litigants and defenders to understand the situation related to the trial, such as whether to apply for withdrawal or to appear in court, and to listen to opinions. After such preparations, the efficiency of the court hearing will be improved, and the defendant's rights will be fully protected. So the system is well designed.

Members of the Zhou Guangquan Committee suggested that some provisions on pre court exchanges and evidence should be considered. In practice, a large number of cases are simple cases, but the total number of files in some cases is not excluded. If there are one hundred or two hundred volumes of cases, so much evidence will be presented to the court after the trial, and the trial will be prolonged. Therefore, we can consider that there is a simple evidence exchange before the court, which is mainly limited to written evidence, and verbal evidence does not need to be exchanged and produced before the court.

Different levels of jurisdiction are set according to the standard of grade jurisdiction.

The criminal procedure law clearly stipulates the time limit for the trial of ordinary criminal cases in first instance. The people's court shall hear a public prosecution case within one month after accepting it, and it shall not exceed one and a half months at the latest. In special circumstances, the higher people's Court of a province, autonomous region or municipality directly under the central government may, upon approval or decision, extend it for another two months.

"This provision will help to urge judges to hear cases in time and prevent prolonged detainment or prolonged detention." Gong Xueping pointed out that, however, the provisions of this trial limit did not take into account the complexity of cases and the needs of court trials at different levels. In addition, there are fewer cases in court cases and more time to settle disputes through criminal reconciliation and criminal collateral civil proceedings. This is not a case, but a common phenomenon, especially in the intermediate court. Shanghai has made a survey. In 2010, the first instance of Baoshan District people's Court of Shanghai City concluded 51.9% cases, and the second intermediate people's Court of Shanghai accounted for 87.7%. The average number of days of trial in the basic courts of Shanghai is between 53 days and 89 days, while the intermediate people's court ends between 129 days and 242 days.

Gong Xueping suggested that for the trial of ordinary criminal cases in the first instance, the basic court would be limited to 2 months, and the intermediate court would be more reasonable for 5 months.

"According to our investigation, the average number of days for criminal reconciliation cases in practice is 93 days, and the incidental civil action in criminal cases takes 72 days." Gong Xueping said that in order to ensure the success rate of reconciliation and mediation, it is recommended that the trial limit of these two cases should be appropriately extended, that is, the extension of one month on the basis of the above mentioned limits.

The number of retrial sent is restricted by judicial interpretation.

Jiang Xingchang, a member of the Standing Committee of the National People's Congress, suggested that the number of retrial cases should be limited by judicial interpretation shortly before considering the draft amendment to the criminal procedure law.

In order to avoid repeating the retrial, the draft amendment to the Criminal Procedural Law has perfected the system of sending back to the retrial and increased the provisions. After the people's Court of first instance made a judgment on the case that the facts of the judgment were not clear and the evidence was insufficient to send the case for retrial, the people's Court of second instance still tried to make a judgment according to law after hearing the trial and still assuming that the facts were not clear or the evidence was insufficient.

In this regard, Jiang Xingchang proposed deletion, no provision.

"In judicial practice, the situation is very complicated." Jiang Xingchang said that if a higher court could not send back a retrial and a direct verdict of innocence, it would be possible to bring the contradictions raised by petitioners to the top, which is not conducive to resolving contradictions at the grass-roots level. Therefore, it is not appropriate to make the above provisions, and should be allowed to send them back for retrial. As for the number of retrial sent, the Supreme People's court can limit it through judicial interpretation.

Summary prosecutors don't have to appear in court.

Dai Yuzhong, a member of the National People's Congress's internal and judicial committee, recently proposed the draft amendment to the criminal procedure law in groups. Prosecutors do not have to appear in court when a summary procedure is applied to hear a case.

The draft stipulates: "the summary procedure shall be applied to hear public prosecution cases, and the people's Procuratorate shall send members to the court."

Dai Yuzhong proposed that the draft should apply the summary procedure to the public prosecution cases, and the people's Procuratorate "instead of sending the members to the court" should be changed to "should be sent to the court". Summary procedure is to simplify the trial procedure in some cases, which is conducive to improving judicial efficiency and reducing costs. This involves not only the workload of the court, but also the workload of the procuratorate. Some people say prosecutors do not attend the court in summary procedure. Who reads the indictment? In fact, the summary procedure is precondition, the first is misdemeanor, the second is the fact is clear, the evidence is sufficient, the third is the guilty suspect and the defendant plead guilty, fourth is the procuratorate has the concrete opinion of sentencing. In this case, the indictment can not be read. The judge can ask the defendant whether he received the indictment and whether he has any opinion on the allegation. If there is any opinion, it can be changed to ordinary procedure. There is no need for procuratorial organs to appear in court.

Allow the defendant to consult written evidence before the court.

Zhou Guangquan, a member of the National People's Congress Law Committee, proposed in a group to consider the draft amendment to the criminal procedure law, which should allow the defendant to check the written evidence of the case before the court.

Zhou Guangquan said that some economic crimes now involve a large number of financial statements, some of which are too professional, and prosecutors and defenders may not be very clear about it. At this time, if the defendant himself applies for the written evidence in the case before the court, is it possible to consider leaving a passageway, such as the permission of the people's court, when the defendant and the defendant are present at the same time, the defendant can check it. Some defendants can make clear the purpose of accounting for economic crimes and property crimes. Allowing the defendant to read the written evidence of the case before the court will be helpful to the subsequent hearing.