Font Size: a A A

The Investigation Report For The Pretrial Conference System In L-city Of S-province

Posted on:2016-02-08Degree:MasterType:Thesis
Country:ChinaCandidate:W J BaiFull Text:PDF
GTID:2296330461462424Subject:Criminal procedure law
Abstract/Summary:PDF Full Text Request
Normally,in criminal procedures,trial procedural problems and some substantive issues should be resolved before the date of the hearing according to the concept that all the preparations should serve for the trial. However, due to legislation imperfection in China, our country’s trial efficiency is low. The judges are difficult to implement the trial concentrating hearing which has been a hinder for the normal development in China’s criminal trial procedure. In 2012, the new "Criminal Procedural Law" has made provision for pretrial conference system on article 182, the following subsequent laws include “The Supreme People’s Court on the Applicable Criminal Procedure Law of the <People’s Republic of China> the interpretation” and “The people’s Procuratorate Criminal Procedure Rules", further provisions have been further formulated about pretrial conference. As a reference to the foreign system of pre-trial procedure, the establishment of pretrial conference system makes up the pretrial procedure in China, so that the resolution of the factors which may affect the efficiency of the court. But as a new legislative law, the imperfect interpretation in the law and judicial also lead to the deviation in some legislative purposes and practices during the implementation. There is still much space to improve the pretrial. This paper takes L-city in S-province as an example, discuss the application of pretrial conference system in judicial practice and it is divided into four parts.The first part mainly introduces the overview of the implementation of pretrial conference system in L-city of S-province. After the establishment of pretrial conference system in the new "Criminal Procedural Law", the justice department in L attaches great importance and tries best to make investigators understand and learn this system. For example, they organize people to learn the new laws and regulations and make regular training for the judges in practical departments. They study the files from judicial department about pretrial conference interpretation and invite some legal experts to introduce this system. Or organize the investigators to communicate in the cases that they have collected and adapted the pretrial conference system at home, in order to know that how the judicial organs use the pretrial conference system as well as the effect of its use. Meanwhile, they do the court judge competition to inspire the enthusiasm of pretrial conference system, but there are still some obstacles to implement smoothly. "Trial inefficiency” problem has not been effectively solved, the appliance of pretrial conference system controlled by the prosecuting, accused party and the department justice still need constant break-in.The second part mainly discusses some problems appeared in the implementation of the pretrial conference system in L-city. The author found that in the survey of 3534 criminal cases in L-city, only 23 held pretrial conferences. Regulations vary a lot, for example, a number of fund-raising fraud crimes which involved numerous victims are also one kind of the pretrial conference cases for L-city intermediate people’s court. The author also found that the starting right of pretrial conference mainly concentrated in the court, not the prosecuting and defending parties. At the same time, there still exist different perspectives in the confusion for the host of the pretrial conference and whether the judge should be given legal effect manner. Especially whether the illegal evidence can be handled in the pretrial conference, viewpoints varies. All these problems have become the obstacles for the smooth implementation of the pretrial conference.In the third part, the author summarizes the causes of problems found in the implementation of pretrial conference. As for the causes, the author thought that discrepancies are existing in the three parties and there is no agreement in the application of pretrial conference. In judicial practices, owing to the different case types, the scope for pretrial conference is hard to grasp by the judges which results in the difference between the cases in the pretrial conference and the judicial practice. At the same time, it has been the main cause for the two parties behave dispositive in the pretrial conference that legislation neglect to give equal rights to the prosecuting and defending parties together with the disunity of the orientation of "judicial personnel", especially for the unclearly specified procedure in the force of law, which contribute to the inactive attitude of the two parties.The fourth part is some suggestions about how to complete our country’s pretrial conference system. The aim of pretrial conference system research is to discover the current problems affected the complementation. For this, on the basis of the analysis to the existing problems and causes, combined with the native and foreign legislations and suggestions proposed by some scholars in our country, the author has gradually proposes his own solutions. Such as encouraging participants to apply the pretrial conference, seeking common interests for all parties, promoting the development of pretrial conference, adding case types, giving equal rights for the two parties to start pretrial conference, endowing the force of law to the discussions of the pretrial conference, establishing mechanisms to shake off the illegal evidence in the pretrial conference and setting up the rules that chamber judge preside over the pretrial conference. All of these suggestions are helpful for the perfection of the pretrial conference system.
Keywords/Search Tags:Pretrial conference, Pretrial procedure, Lawsuit efficiency, the force of law, Illegal evidence exclusion
PDF Full Text Request
Related items