摘要
从历史沿革来看,我国新《刑事诉讼法》第240条第1款仅仅是对既往司法解释的法律化,并不足以化解现实问题。要彻底解决律师有效介入死刑复核程序的问题,需进一步澄清死刑复核程序的目的和性质。死刑复核程序应以践行"慎用死刑"为目的,在本质上应当被解释为一项审判而非行政审批程序。唯此,律师全面参与死刑复核程序之问题才可迎刃而解,因此须将该条款置入"公正审判"这一上位概念下予以阐释和应用。
Article 240 （1） in China＇s new Criminal Procedure Law is not good enough to solve practical problems even though it turns the previous judicial interpretations into a formal legal proposition. The goal and nature of death penalty review must be further clarified so that lawyers may play an effective role in the process. Death penalty review should be designated in such a manner that special cautions are taken in application of death penalty. It is a judicial rather than an administrative procedure. This is the only case in which lawyers may play a role in the entire process of dealth penalty review. In this sense, Article 240 （ 1 ） should be interpreted and applied in the context of ＂impartial trial. ＂
出处
《法学杂志》
CSSCI
北大核心
2014年第6期114-120,共7页
Law Science Magazine
基金
北京市哲学社会科学规划项目"依法加强网络社会管理研究"(编号:13FXC047)
北京市社会科学界联合会青年社科人才资助项目"首都社区治理模式与社区矫正的交互发展研究"的阶段性成果
关键词
死刑复核程序
律师
辩护权
行政审批说
审判程序
death penalty review lawyer cial procedure right to defense administrative approval judicial procedure
