论文部分内容阅读
本文通过批判实用主义哲学观支配论,对速裁程序的正当性进行了论证。创新点有三:其一,法哲学角度的理性分析。这包括从实用主义哲学的内涵入手,对速裁程序的实践特点进行归纳总结,树立起速裁程序正当性怀疑论的标靶,实现从实践到理论的飞跃;以及基于自然法的正当观念和原则,推导出符合当前中国刑事诉讼构造的速裁程序正当性评判标准,并以该标准对速裁程序进行验证,尝试以理论指导实践。其二,文章的分析基于第一手的实证资料。刑事案件速裁程序自试点以来,受限于时间与地域原则,客观反映实践效果尤其是问题的数据与资料并不多,本文既对案件多、程序规范的试点法院深度调研,深入了解制度的实际运作情况,又借参加全国法院速裁程序研修班、最高法院刑事案件速裁程序中期评估论证会等活动之机,获得各试点法院总体数据与实际情况,提出的问题有一定代表性。其三,文章总结实践需求,对速裁程序的完善提出了具有一定可行性的建议。
This article demonstrates the legitimacy of the arbitration proceedings by criticizing the pragmatism of pragmatism philosophy view. There are three innovative points: First, the rational analysis from the perspective of legal philosophy. This includes starting from the connotation of pragmatism philosophy, summing up and summarizing the practical features of the arbitration proceedings, establishing the target of the skepticism of the arbitral proceedings, and realizing the leap from practice to theory; and the legitimate concepts based on natural law and Principle, this paper deduces the justification criteria for the quick fix procedure that conforms to the current structure of criminal procedure in China, and verifies the quick fix procedure with this standard, trying to guide the practice with theory. Second, the analysis of the article is based on first-hand empirical data. Since the pilot program of criminal cases has been limited by time and geographical principles, there are not many data or data that objectively reflect the practical effects, especially the problems. This article not only investigates and examines deeply the pilot courts with many cases and procedural norms, The actual operation of the court, and by taking part in such activities as the seminar on speed arbitration in the courts of the whole country and the mid-term appraisal demonstration of the speedy proceedings in criminal cases of the Supreme Court, the overall data and actual conditions of the pilot courts are obtained and the issues raised are representative. Thirdly, the article summarizes the practical needs and puts forward some feasible suggestions on the improvement of the arbitration process.