• 主题
高级搜索  >
历史搜索 清空历史
首页> 外文学位 >The Practice of 'Criminal Reconciliation' (xingshi hejie) in the PRC Criminal Justice System.
【24h】

The Practice of 'Criminal Reconciliation' (xingshi hejie) in the PRC Criminal Justice System.

机译：中国刑事司法制度中的“刑事和解”实践。

获取原文
获取原文并翻译 | 示例
页面导航
  • 摘要
  • 著录项
  • 相似文献
  • 相关主题

摘要

This thesis examines the practice of ‘criminal reconciliation’ (xingshi hejie) in the People’s Republic of China by means of empirical research. ‘Criminal reconciliation’ is officially understood as a mechanism to promote a ‘harmonious society’ ( hexie shehui) through voluntary offender-victim reconciliation and bringing ‘closure’ (an jie shi liao) to criminal case in a way that empowers the parties. It has been designed as a mechanism that overcomes perceived deficiencies of the ordinary, in principle adversarial criminal justice process.;Based on case examples and interviews conducted in three localities in mainland China in 2008 and 2010, however, this thesis argues that this mechanism may infringe the rights of suspects and defendants as well as of alleged victims (summarily referred to as ‘the parties’) in criminal cases, and that it may lead to injustice. While the case files accessed for the purpose of this research purport to document a well-functioning process of criminal reconciliation in accordance with the rules and principles supposed to govern it, interviews provide a drastically different picture. In practice, the criminal justice process was not characterized by the principle of voluntariness supposed to be one of its main advantages; rather, the officials in charge dominated the process. In addition, the entire process exclusively focused on compensation, so it was potentially unfair to economically weak suspects and defendants. It was also found in some cases that the conflict between the parties still existed or had worsened at the end of the criminal reconciliation programmes.;On the basis of these findings, it is argued that criminal reconciliation throws light on fundamental problems with the wider criminal justice system. First, officials in the criminal justice system, routinely ignore certain legal rules protecting the parties’ rights and to some extent replace these rules with ‘hidden rules’ (qian guize), whose content is largely shaped by politically driven performance assessment criteria, as well as in some cases by intervention from other entities such the Political-Legal Committee. Second, the criminal proceedings in China reflect an authoritarian, paternalistic and educational (thought-reform-based) approach to criminal justice; the parties’ rights are regarded as secondary to this political end. Third, the State does not take sufficient responsibility to protect the victim’s right to get compensation in the civil litigation collateral to criminal proceedings.;In conclusion, this thesis argues that resolving criminal cases through ‘criminal reconciliation’ may aggravate the problems already affecting the ordinary criminal justice process, because it is a mechanism designed to weaken procedural rights protections, and eliminate the adversarial character of the criminal justice process. Thus the promotion of ‘criminal reconciliation’ may be one of several signs that China is deviating from the path of rule of law development that was once the leadership’s clearly stated goal.
机译：本文通过实证研究，考察了中华人民共和国的“刑事和解”做法。正式将“刑事和解”理解为一种机制，它通过自愿的罪犯与受害者之间的和解促进“和谐社会”的发展，并以赋予当事人权力的方式将“结案”（结案）带入刑事案件。它被设计为一种克服通常认为的对抗性刑事司法程序的缺陷的机制。；基于2008年和2010年在中国大陆三个地区​​进行的案例和访谈，本文认为这种机制可能在刑事案件中侵犯嫌疑人和被告以及所谓的受害者的权利（总称“当事方”），并可能导致不公正。尽管出于本研究的目的而访问的案卷旨在按照规管该案的规则和原则记录刑事和解的良好运作过程，但访谈却截然不同。在实践中，刑事司法程序没有以自愿原则为主要优势之一的特征；相反，负责官员主导了这一过程。此外，整个过程完全专注于赔偿，因此对经济上较弱的嫌疑人和被告人来说可能是不公平的。在某些情况下，还发现在刑事和解方案结束时当事方之间的冲突仍然存在或加剧了冲突;根据这些发现，有人认为刑事和解为更广泛的犯罪分子带来了根本问题司法系统。首先，刑事司法系统的官员通常会忽略某些保护当事人权利的法律规则，并在某种程度上用“隐藏规则”（钱桂泽）代替这些规则，其内容主要由政治驱动的绩效评估标准所决定。例如在某些情况下，是通过政治法律委员会等其他实体的干预。第二，中国的刑事诉讼程序反映了专制，家长式和教育性（基于思想改革）的刑事司法方法；政党的权利被视为这一政治目的的次要因素。第三，国家没有承担足够的责任来保护受害者在刑事诉讼附带民事诉讼中获得赔偿的权利。总之，本文认为通过“刑事和解”解决刑事案件可能加剧已经影响普通民众的问题。刑事司法程序，因为它是旨在削弱程序性权利保护并消除刑事司法程序的对抗性的机制。因此，促进“刑事和解”可能是中国偏离法治发展道路的几个迹象之一，而法治发展道路曾是领导人明确提出的目标。

著录项

  • 作者

    Jiang, Jue.;

  • 作者单位

    The Chinese University of Hong Kong (Hong Kong).;

  • 授予单位 The Chinese University of Hong Kong (Hong Kong).;
  • 学科 Law.
  • 学位 Ph.D.
  • 年度 2012
  • 页码 410 p.
  • 总页数 410
  • 原文格式 PDF
  • 正文语种 eng
  • 中图分类
  • 关键词

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
获取原文

客服邮箱：kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备：11010802029741号 ICP备案号：京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有

  • 客服微信

  • 服务号