刑事法官诉讼角色的再考察——以审辩冲突为中心  

Re-examination of the Criminal Judge’s Litigation Role——Centered on conflict between trial and error

作　　者：琚明亮 JU Ming-liang

机构地区：[1]清华大学法学院

出　　处：《北方法学》2020年第5期142-152,共11页Northern Legal Science

基　　金：2018年国家社会科学基金项目“松散结合型法院治理模式研究”(18CFX029)的阶段性成果。

摘　　要：审辩关系作为对抗式刑事诉讼中的非典型性概念,现于当下我国亚职权主义诉讼模式中主要表现为一种冲突性的非对称关系。表面上,其肇因于辩方诉讼内的程序性与证据性辩护以及诉讼外的舆论性辩护三种辩护形式。本质上,其源始于裁判者在诉讼目的与庭审功能上的事实中心域立场。结果上,其导致了程序规范的惯习失灵与裁判权威的最终失却。在新《刑事诉讼法》背景下,刑事法官亟需在日渐朝向对抗式的改革话语中承担起全新的制度角色:立足于以裁判者为中心的审辩关系重构,刑事法官不仅需要完成整体上从权力集约型向权力分享型法官的职权转换,还需在相应的诉讼禁止与诉讼许可、程序控制与程序引导以及程序制裁与程序救济的单向性转换中实现其真正的个体认同与价值肯受。As an atypical concept in adversarial criminal litigation,the relationship between the judge and defender is mainly manifested as a conflicting asymmetrical relationship in the current sub-authority litigation model in my country.On the surface,it is caused by three forms of defense:procedural and evidential defense within the defense litigation,and public opinion defense outside the defense litigation.In essence,it originated from the fact-centered position of the referee on the purpose of litigation and trial function.As a result,it leads to the failure of habituation of procedural norms and the ultimate loss of referee authority.In the context of the new Criminal Procedure Law,criminal judges urgently need to assume a new institutional role in the increasingly confrontational reform discourse:based on the restructuring of the trial and defense relationship which centered on the judges,criminal judges not only need to complete the overall transition from power-intensive to power-sharing judges,but also necessary to realize its true individual identity and value acceptance in the corresponding one-way conversion of litigation prohibition and litigation permission,procedural control and procedural guidance,and procedural sanctions and procedural relief.

关 键 词：审辩冲突 职权主义 程序性辩护 对抗式 裁判权威 

分 类 号：DF73[政治法律—诉讼法学]