| dc.contributor | 法律學系 | |
| dc.creator (作者) | 何賴傑 | zh_TW |
| dc.date (日期) | 2012 | |
| dc.date.accessioned | 12-Apr-2016 15:40:27 (UTC+8) | - |
| dc.date.available | 12-Apr-2016 15:40:27 (UTC+8) | - |
| dc.date.issued (上傳時間) | 12-Apr-2016 15:40:27 (UTC+8) | - |
| dc.identifier.uri (URI) | http://nccur.lib.nccu.edu.tw/handle/140.119/84165 | - |
| dc.description.abstract (摘要) | 如同古諺「遲來的正義，不是正義」所示，訴訟無法迅速進行，對於保障刑事司法人權及確保司法正義，都會造成嚴重的傷害。在國際人權公約或內國法(憲法或刑事訴訟法)，多將訴訟迅速理念列為重要的價值予以規範，基此，在刑事訴訟法，訴訟迅速原則亦為支配刑事訴訟非常重要的原則之一，且為國家刑事司法機關必須盡力實踐之誡命。而在具體實踐上，為達訴訟迅速目的，無論是立法或司法，皆須採取具體措施，始能克竟其功。本計畫即以德國晚近基於訴訟迅速原則所採立法及司法之具體實踐範例為研究重點，例如，立法方面，2009年7月29日公布之協商程序；司法方面，聯邦最高法院晚近透過一系列判決所示，基於訴訟迅速原則而對當事人程序權利予以限制之情形，例如，「設定期限模式」、「異議解決方案」、限縮當事人上訴可能性，即容許下級審法院事後更正審判筆錄，因而當事人針對下級審審判筆錄所記載之程序瑕疵，即無法合法提起上訴；對於違反訴訟迅速原則之法律效果，廢棄實施數十年之久之「減刑模式」，改採「執行模式」等。德國學界對此等措施之批評方興未艾。相對於德國晚近立法及司法之改革，我國刑事妥速審判法之立法，仍有諸多不足之處，尤其批評者常以該法對於如何有效促進訴訟迅速並無具體指示，因而司法實踐上將淪為以減輕被告刑罰做為唯一手段。此外，在司法實踐上，對於如何促進訴訟迅速，最高法院得做為促進訴訟迅速指引方針或指標性判決，亦不多見。如參照德國立法及司法實踐經驗，我國必須嚴肅思索現階段刑事立法及司法是否尚有進一步努力空間。 | |
| dc.description.abstract (摘要) | As the old saying "belated justice, not justice", belated proceedings can cause serious injury to human rights and criminal justice. Within the international human rights conventions or national law (Constitution or Code of Criminal Procedure), speedy trial principal will be one of the important concept of litigation. The state of criminal justice must try to practice this principle. For the purpose of the rapid trial, whether legislative or judicial actions are in concrete required. This project is based on recent German action adopted by the legislative and judicial practice of specific examples, for example, in legislation of July 29, 2009 about the plea bargaining proceedings, and in judicial judgment, through a series of recent Supreme Court decision below, based on the limitation of the rights of the parties, for example, "set a time limit mode", "dissent solution", reducing the possibility of the appeal durch allowing the lower court trial to correct trial transcripts, which show some errors, and action for breach of the legal effect of the principle, abandoned for decades to implement the "sentence mode" changed to "execution mode". German scholars have criticized such measures in the ascendant. Relative to Germany`s recent legislative and judicial reform, Taiwan`s Criminal Justice Act and Speedy Trial Act of the legislature are still many shortcomings. In addition, the sentences of Supreme Court of Taiwan, as to promote rapid action policy or indicators guidelines, are rare. With reference to the German experience, our country must seriously think about how to improve criminal justice legislation and judicial practice; Further efforts are still spatial. | |
| dc.format.extent | 502650 bytes | - |
| dc.format.mimetype | application/pdf | - |
| dc.relation (關聯) | 計畫編號 NSC101-2410-H004-044 | |
| dc.subject (關鍵詞) | 訴訟迅速原則;設定期限模式;異議解決方案;審判筆錄之更正;減刑模式;執行模式;刑事妥速審判法減刑規定 | |
| dc.subject (關鍵詞) | Speedy Trial Priciple;“Set a time limit mode”;“dissent solution”;“sentence mode”;“execution mode” | |
| dc.title (題名) | 訴訟迅速原則之具體實踐──以德國刑事訴訟晚近發展為例 | zh_TW |
| dc.title.alternative (其他題名) | Essay on German Practice of Speedy Trial Principle | |
| dc.type (資料類型) | report | |
