论文部分内容阅读
2012年修改通过的《刑事诉讼法》新增了有关羁押必要性审查的规定,突出了对被羁押人人权的重视和保障,但是该规定过于原则化,在实践中的可操作性不强。本文通过比较最高人民检察院先后发布的两份司法解释,可以发现其对于若干细节问题的规定之间存在着一定的区别,一个突出的表现是有关审查内容的规定。《人民检察院刑事诉讼规则(试行)》对于审查内容所采取的是一体式的规定,《人民检察院办理羁押必要性审查案件规定(试行)》所采取的则是类型化区分的规定。相比较而言,类型化区分的规定方式更好地体现出了被羁押人的不同情形对于继续羁押必要性的不同影响,对于实践中的操作具有更为明确的指引意义。
The Criminal Procedure Law, passed in 2012, has added new provisions on the review of the necessity of detention, highlighting the importance attached to and safeguarding the human rights of detainees. However, this is too principled and not practical in practice. This article compares the two judicial interpretations promulgated by the Supreme People’s Procuratorate and finds that there are some differences between the provisions on a number of details. One prominent manifestation is the provisions on the content of the examination. The Provisions of the Criminal Proceedings of the People’s Procuratorate (for Trial Implementation) are integral to the content of the review. The Provisions of the People’s Procuratorate on Examining the Necessity of Detention (Provisional) are the type-specific provisions. In contrast, the prescriptive categorization method better reflects the different effects of different circumstances of detainees on the necessity of continuing detention, and has a clearer guiding meaning for practical operations.