The Dilemma And Outlet Of The Right To Meet In China

The establishment and development of the defense system reflects the state's pursuit of judicial justice and litigation democracy in modern legal systems,and is an important part of the criminal legal system.Whether the defense system is sound or not has become an important indicator of whether a country's judicial system is fair,democratic,and scientific.The meeting system is of great significance in protecting the rights of the criminal suspect and the defendant in litigation and achieving equality between prosecution and defense,and is the basis of the defense system.With the continuous advancement of the rule of law,China has also paid more and more attention to the right to meet.The Criminal Procedure Law revised in 2012 formally established the basic status of the "three certificates" meeting,but the right to meet still exists in theory and practice.Many questions.This article will use the form of empirical analysis to sort out the main issues in the current interview based on the author's personal experience of the interview experience,and try to propose a feasible solution.The full text is mainly divided into four chapters.The first chapter is a basic overview of the right to meet.This article briefly introduces the emergence and development of the meeting system in China and the rights relief provisions in the Criminal Procedure Law,and analyzes the development trend of the meeting right in China.After the "Criminal Procedure Law" waspromulgated in 2012,the "three certificates" meeting gradually became the mainstream,but the imperfections in legal provisions and the lack of relief channels have left institutional hidden dangers to the violation of the right to meet in practice.At the same time,from the perspective of personal rights and litigation procedures,the significance of improving the system of the right to meet is explained to show the value and necessity of improving the system of the right to meet.The second chapter mainly introduces the theoretical and practical dilemmas of the current right to meet in China.Part of the findings of these problems comes from the summary and analysis of the cases of lawyers' rights notification published on the website of the National Bar Association.Completely disappeared.The other part is that the author found some practical problems in the field interviews.Can the detention center convey the needs of lawyers to the detainees? The question of whether the subject of the right of interview should include the criminal suspects and the defendants.In addition,there is a queue for the meeting The detention center has poor hardware facilities and it is difficult to meet the daily meeting requirements,and some detention centers have format requirements for lawyers' interview procedures.The third chapter introduces the meeting system of some foreign countries,Hong Kong,and Taiwan and compares it with our country's meeting system,in order to try to provide ideas for solving the dilemma of the right of meeting in China.In general,countries and regions with a developed rule of law have clearly guaranteed the right of interviews of lawyers and clients,and have clear regulations on the consequences and remedies for violations of the right to meet.The "Miranda Rules" established by the jurisprudence in the United States guarantee the "right to silence" of the parties.The parties may request an interview on their own initiative.If they request an interview,the police must notify the lawyer for it,and the lawyer has the right to be present when the police question the client.Statements obtained in violation of the Miranda Rules will not be used as evidence.Similar to the United States,the United Kingdom also guarantees the suspect's knowledge of lawyers' consulting rights,and also provides a corresponding system of exclusion of illegalevidence to fully protect the rights of parties and lawyers to meet.Compared with countries(regions) in the common law system,civil law countries(regions) have relatively more restrictions on the right to meet.It has certain reference significance for China in terms of how to balance the relationship between rights and restrictions.Japan also has "meeting appointment" measures to limit the right of meeting.Japan has formulated corresponding procedures for ruling on the abuse of "meeting appointment" by the investigating authorities,and through a large number of judgments,the investigating authorities have illegally curbed the violation of the right to meet.In addition,some detention centers in China have introduced corresponding measures to solve the problem of insufficient reception capacity,such as conducting weekend meetings and video meetings using the Internet,which are worth pondering and promoting.Chapter IV will try to put forward a feasible plan for the improvement of China's right to meet on the basis of the above,mainly from the legislative system and specific measures to solve the problem of reception capacity.The legislative system will be analyzed from the perspectives of criminal suspects,defendants,judicial organs,regulatory agencies,investigative agencies,and defense lawyers.Specific measures are mainly carried out in terms of time,space and network utilization.