论文部分内容阅读
我国理论界对刑事和解的界定具有典型的“泛西方化”色彩,既不能反映我国的司法实践,也不能揭示刑事和解在我国适用的立法化方向。刑事和解与罪刑法定原则的价值取向、契约精神和内在要求在根本上是一致的;刑事诉讼法第一百四十二条第二款是检察机关适用刑事和解的法律基础和范围。以判处“三年以下有期徒刑、拘役、管制”的案件为标准确定适用刑事和解的范围,不仅可以节约司法成本,提高诉讼效益,而且可以实现政治效果、法律效果与社会效果三者的和谐统一。
The definition of criminal reconciliation in our country has a typical “pan-Western” color, which can neither reflect our country’s judicial practice nor reveal the applicable legislative direction of criminal reconciliation in our country. The value orientation, contractual spirit and inherent requirements of the legal principle of criminal reconciliation and crime and punishment are fundamentally identical; Article 142, paragraph 2, of the Criminal Procedure Law is the legal basis and scope for the prosecution to apply criminal reconciliation. Determining the scope of application of criminal reconciliation based on the case of “three years’ imprisonment, criminal detention and public surveillance” can not only save the judicial costs and enhance the efficiency of litigation, but also achieve the political, legal and social effects Harmony.