治安调解若干问题研究  

Make A Study of Problems about Conciliation of Public Order

作　　者：张立新[1] 冯锁柱[1] 

机构地区：[1]北京人民警察学院,北京102202

出　　处：《中国人民公安大学学报（社会科学版）》2006年第2期99-105,共7页Journal of People’s Public Security University of China:Social Sciences Edition

基　　金：北京人民警察学院立项课题"公安机关治安调解问题研究"阶段性成果

摘　　要：治安调解是公安机关依法对因民间纠纷违反治安管理行为的非处罚性处理方法。究竟需要怎样的治安调解制度,应当将其置于整个纠纷解决机制之中加以考察。依据《中华人民共和国治安管理处罚法》第9条关于治安调解的原则性规定,治安调解适用的情形主要在该法第43条和第49条规定调整的范围内。治安案件不适用“谁主张,谁举证”的原则,当事人只需表明自己的权益受损,证明责任由警察担当。但不应将公安机关的证明责任绝对化,尤其是在当事人因民间纠纷提起治安处罚程序,要求公安机关追究对方责任的情形下,当事人应当对证明自己主张的案件事实承担一定的证明责任。治安调解的程序适用一方面应便于公安机关掌握纠纷事实真相,明确双方责任,提出处理建议;另一方面还须为调解不成或者不履行协议的治安处罚服务。According to the ninth clause of 《Public Order Management and Punishment Act》, the principle of ＂who is an impleader, who put to the proof＂ can not be applied in cases of public order. The complainant would just demonstrate the loss of his or her rights while the police would be charge with the burden of proof. However, the right claimer should hole the burden of poof under some conditions. The party should be partly charge with the fact of case that he or she asserts. On the one hand, The process of public order intermediation should make it convenient for the police to identify the facts of conflicts, to assign the burdens of proof, and to put forward the sugestion about the conflicts. On the other hand, the intermediative process of public order should also service the cases of failure in intermediation or enforcement.

关 键 词：治安调解 调解制度 证明责任 调解范围 调解程序 

分 类 号：D035.34[政治法律—政治学]