应否恢复法院的退回补充侦查权的实质内涵——以证明标准为视角兼论我国刑事疑案处理  

The Substance of Whether the Court Should Restore the Right of Supplementary Investigation——And Discuss Criminal Mystery Cases in the Perspective of the Standard of Proof

作　　者：方姚 沙万中[1] 

机构地区：[1]甘肃政法学院,甘肃兰州730070

出　　处：《广西政法管理干部学院学报》2015年第1期100-105,共6页Journal of Guangxi Administrative Cadre Institute of Politics and Law

摘　　要：法院要求恢复其退回补充侦查权旨在保障诉讼的顺利进行,而此举又被解读为法院抛弃了中立的立场而是一种有罪推定的体现。但是从刑事证明标准的角度来看,退回补充侦查权作为处理刑事疑案的方式之一,确有其合理性的一面。然而,若恢复法院的退回补充侦查权,其负面影响亦不可忽视。其实,法院要求恢复退回补充侦查权从本质上来看是由于我国现阶段处理刑事疑案的方式比较简陋,不足以满足司法实践的需要。在针对我国刑事疑案难以处理的问题上,应采取更为灵活多样的处理方式,以完善我国刑事疑案处理的方法体系。The court want to restore restore the right of supplementary investigation, aims to ensure the smooth progress of the proceedings, which means that the court abandon the neutral position instead of keeping the idea of the presumption of guilt. But from the perspective of the criminal standard of proof, the right of supplementary investigution as one way of dealing with criminal mystery case , and it really reasonable. However, if the court restore the fight of supplementary investigation, its negative effects should not be ignored. In fact, the court want to restore restore the right of supplementary investigation that in essence is due to the way our criminal mystery measures are relatively simple, which is not sufficient to meet the needs of judicial practice. On the issue of criminal mystery cases, we should adopt more flexible ideas to improve the methodology of processing of criminal mystery cases.

关 键 词：退回补充侦查权 证明标准 刑事疑案处理方式 完善方法 

分 类 号：DF73[政治法律—诉讼法学]