检索规则说明:AND代表“并且”;OR代表“或者”;NOT代表“不包含”;(注意必须大写,运算符两边需空一格)
检 索 范 例 :范例一: (K=图书馆学 OR K=情报学) AND A=范并思 范例二:J=计算机应用与软件 AND (U=C++ OR U=Basic) NOT M=Visual
机构地区:[1]中山大学法学院刑法学04级研究生 [2]中山大学法学院
出 处:《中山大学研究生学刊(社会科学版)》2005年第1期72-78,共7页Journal of the Graduates Sun YAT-SEN University(Social Sciences)
摘 要:死刑复核制度具有限制死刑的功能,也是"慎用死刑"的程序保障。我国古代的死刑制度源远流长,经历了千年的发展,曾经一度形成了完备的死刑复核的制度和一套死刑救济的理论体系。而我国现代的死刑复核体制却面临着重重的困境虽然死刑度核权回收到最高法院已经被提上立法议程,但仍然有相当一部分关键的问题悬而未决。本文试图通过对古代的死刑复核制度的研究与比较,审视我国目前的死刑复核制度的弊端,来探讨它的改革的道路。Mechanism of judicial review of death penalty (thereinafter called Mechanism) plays the role of qualifying death penalty as well as procedure-law guarantee minimizing death penalty. Death penalty could date back more than a thousand years in ancient China and it was formed of an intact theoretical system of judicial review and relief of death penalty. In modern legal system, because obligation of judicial review and relief of death penalty is transferred from the Supreme People's Court to the High People's Court, Mechanism applied in most cases only exists in the name rather than functions substantively as it should be. After comparison between the Mechanism in ancient China and that in modern China, this article mainly focuses on what is wrong doing in modern Mechanism and how to improve it.
正在载入数据...
正在载入数据...
正在载入数据...
正在载入数据...
正在载入数据...
正在载入数据...
正在载入数据...
正在链接到云南高校图书馆文献保障联盟下载...
云南高校图书馆联盟文献共享服务平台 版权所有©
您的IP:216.73.216.229