论文部分内容阅读
根据《刑法》75、76、77条及相关修正案,缓刑撤销有三种情况,根据漏罪、根据新罪和根据“技术性违反”。新罪和漏罪必须经由刑事诉讼程序确定,因为一个与原来刑事诉讼程序处置的不同罪名、刑罚的新刑事案件被确定是撤销缓刑的前提条件,即撤销缓刑也会历严格刑事诉讼程序,其可以被视为一种缓刑撤销的程序化构建。本文拟分析最后一种情况,因“技术性违反”出现的缓刑撤销的程序化构造问题:习惯法与国家法两套法律规则在运行逻辑上表现出一对矛盾关系,国家机关撤销缓刑的裁定既合法、同时又不合法。此举赋予了国家机关合法侵害缓刑犯的权力。因此,未来关于该制度的修改应注意限制司法机关的这一权力,即对缓刑撤销权以刑事诉讼程序化的方式限制,进而有效保障其合法权利。
Pursuant to articles 75, 76 and 77 of the Penal Code and related amendments, there are three circumstances under which probation may be revoked, based on new and existing offenses and on the basis of “technical violations.” New crimes and leaks must be determined through criminal proceedings because a new criminal case of a different criminal offense than the original criminal procedure has been established as a prerequisite for the revocation of probation that the suspension of probation will also be subject to strict criminal procedure, Can be considered as a procedural construct of probation revocation. This article intends to analyze the final case because of the procedural structuring of the suspension of probation due to “technical breach”: the two sets of legal rules of customary law and state law show a contradictory relationship in logic of operation and the revocation of probation by state organs The ruling is valid and not legal at the same time. The move has given state organs the power to legally infringe the probationer. Therefore, in the future, the revision of this system should pay attention to restricting this power of the judiciary, that is, to limit the right to revocation of probation in the way of procedural criminal procedure so as to effectively protect its legal rights.