论文部分内容阅读
刑事和解制度自2013年《刑事诉讼法》立法确认后施行至今,制度实施的社会功能整体较好,不仅有利于弥补被害人的合法权益,也有利于加害人重新回归社会。审视这一制度在司法中的运行现状,其仍存在适用条件较粗疏、法律效果规定过于模糊、赔偿标准不规范及履约方式单一、缺乏审查加害人是否真诚悔过的相关配套措施等缺陷。对此,应首先完善制度的适用条件,明确“三年(或七年)以下有期徒刑”的含义,将加害人与被害人原先的社会关系纳入“自愿性”的考察标准。其次,明确制度的法律效果,明晰“从宽”在不同诉讼阶段中的涵义并统一规定和解协议书的法律效力视同于附带民事调解书。复次,促进赔偿标准的规范化及加害人履行义务方式的多元化。此外,还应制定考察当事人真诚、自愿和解的持续性措施。
Since the implementation of the criminal procedure law in 2013, the system of criminal reconciliation has been implemented as a whole with good social functions. It not only helps to compensate the victims’ legitimate rights and interests, but also helps the perpetrators return to society. Examining the status quo of the operation of this system in the judiciary, there are still some shortcomings such as the unfavorable application conditions, the obscure legal provisions, the non-standard compensation standards and the single mode of performance, and lack of relevant supporting measures to examine whether the perpetrators repent in good faith. In this regard, we should first improve the conditions for the application of the system, clarify the meaning of “three years (or seven years) of imprisonment”, and include the original social relationship between the perpetrator and the victim in the “voluntary” inspection standard. Second, the legal effect of clarifying the system, clarifying the meaning of “leniency” in different stages of litigation and uniformly stipulating the legal effect of the agreement on conciliation as the incidental civil mediation. The second is to promote the standardization of compensation standards and the diversification of the ways in which perpetrators perform their obligations. In addition, continuous measures should be developed to examine the parties’ sincere and voluntary reconciliation.