“新职权主义”与中国刑事诉讼改革的基本路径  

New Inquisitorial Mode and Criminal Procedure Reform in China

作　　者：施鹏鹏 Shi Pengpeng

机构地区：[1]中国政法大学证据科学教育部重点实验室

出　　处：《比较法研究》2020年第2期72-89,共18页Journal of Comparative Law

基　　金：笔者主持的国家社会科学基金一般项目“人民陪审员制度的实质化改革研究”(项目号:17BFX046)的阶段性成果。

摘　　要：美国联邦最高法院长期以来对欧陆职权主义刑事诉讼制度持敌对态度,并将其作为反面典型以论证当事人主义诸项制度的正当性依据。中国主流学术观点也基本持此一立场,许多论断带有"反职权主义"的前见,将职权主义作为刑讯逼供、超期羁押、律师地位低下、辩护权孱弱的代名词。事实上,从法国大革命至近代,欧陆多数职权主义国家均从英美法系当事人主义的对抗式诉讼借鉴经验,借以弥补传统职权主义刑事诉讼自身的缺陷,并取得了较好的效果,可称之为"新职权主义"。"新职权主义"与中国时下的刑事诉讼在职权配置、权利保障体制、程序制裁规则、刑事证明制度等方面均存在重要差异。中国时下所倡导的"审判中心"、"庭审实质化"改革应考虑在"新职权主义"的背景下展开,寻求更符合中国法律传统的诉讼制度改革。The Federal Supreme Court of the United States has been treating the inquisitorial criminal procedure of Continental Europe with hostility for a long period of time,taking it as the negative example to justify the basis of adversary systems.The mainstream academic points in China hold the same ground,which make judgements with the prejudice of"anti-inquisitorialism"and regard inquisitorialism as synonymous with extorting confession by torture,extended custody,advocates’the low judicial status and weak right to defense.However,from the time of French Revolution to the modern time,most of the inquisitorial countries in Continental Europe actually had all drawn lessons and experiences from common law adversary systems to make up the shortcomings of traditional inquisitorial criminal procedure and achieved a lot,which can be called"new inquisitorialism."The"new inquisitorialism"has major differences with current criminal procedure in China in power allocation,rights guarantee system,procedural sanction system,criminal proof system and so on.The call for reforms like"judgement centralism,""substantialize court trail"raised by China nowadays should be concerned with developing under"new inquisitorialism"and resort to reforms that are fitting better according to the Chinese traditional procedural systems.

关 键 词：新职权主义 审判中心 庭审实质化 误解中的批判 改革方向 

分 类 号：D925.2[政治法律—诉讼法学]