論公訴權(quán)對自訴權(quán)的整合.pdf

1、重慶大學碩士學位論文論公訴權(quán)對自訴權(quán)的整合姓名：楊智勛申請學位級別：碩士專業(yè)：訴訟法學指導教師：高飛2010-05重慶大學碩士學位論文 英文摘要 II ABSTRACT Criminal proceedings exist to ensure basic civil rights to oppose improper misconduct from the organs of state power. It is

2、also the final barrier to preserve justness and authority of the justice, and also the equality and justice of the society. Criminal proceedings should always seek procedural justice and substa

3、ntive justice, and make the criminal substantive justice be based upon the achievement of criminal procedural justice. The democratic and judicial society exists to protect human rights and to k

4、eep the private rights from violation of authority. The society should exercise the criminal procedure laws when it sets criminal laws and the due process of criminal prosecution as well as t

5、rial, so that the legitimate rights of the victims and the defendants can be realized. As an important part of criminal proceedings, the right of public prosecution is also the most fundamenta

6、l and important method to exercise the criminal proceedings. In the modern democratic and judicial society, most of countries have the criminal prosecution system leaded by the rights of public

7、 prosecution and supported by the rights of private. For instance, the state monopoly prosecution and prosecutors exclusive system in Japan, the prosecution system based on the combination of a

8、 grand jury review and prosecutors review in U.S. These prosecution systems are dominated by the state prosecution fully. In Germany and France, the public criminal prosecution is still playing

9、 a leading role although they have the victims’rights relief system. Chinese Criminal Procedure Law put the vast majority of criminal cases into public prosecution system, so the issue comes ou

10、t when the right of public prosecution and the right of private prosecution coexist Based upon criminal appeal at the same time, the right of private prosecution and the right of private pros

11、ecution have two subjects of the right in all, so it is prone to poor coordination, which can result in two competing or evasive rights. And the judiciary would be quite confused how to st

12、art with that situation in practice. Especially, by the confusion in varying degrees caused by the right of private prosecution, the public prosecution may be aggressed inappropriately. Moreover,

13、 giving victims the free right of disposition for some serious violent crime can easily cause social instability. So this paper compares and assesses the approach to solve dilemma between the