论文部分内容阅读
此次刑事诉讼法修改后,新刑诉法在人权保障制度、证据制度、辩护制度等多方面都取得了许多突破,并创设了未成年人刑事诉讼程序、未到案犯罪嫌疑人违法所得没收程序、公诉案件刑事和解等几个特别程序,但在诸如“监视居住”、“如实回答义务”等条款上也引来诸多质疑。如何解决新法中“自证其罪”与“如实回答义务”之间的冲突,如何防止“指定监视居住”措施的异化和失控,如何正确理解立法者的本意,保障法律不会被曲解和滥用,并通过执法环节的顶层设计来弥补立法上不足和消除公众的疑虑将显得尤为重要。
After the revision of the Criminal Procedure Law, the new Criminal Procedure Law has made many breakthroughs in various aspects such as the system of human rights protection, the evidence system and the defense system, and has created a juvenile criminal procedure to confiscate the illegal proceeds of the criminal suspects Procedures, prosecution cases such as criminal reconciliation several special procedures, but in such as “monitoring of residence ”, “truthfully answer the obligation ” and other articles also attracted many questions. How to solve the conflict between the “self-incrimination” and “truthful replying duty” in the new law and how to prevent the alienation and out of control of the “designated surveillance residence” measures, how to correctly understand the original intention of legislators and safeguard the law It will be especially important not to be misunderstood and misused, and to make up for the legislative deficiencies and eliminate the public’s doubts through the top-level design of law enforcement.