再类型化:境外型缺席审判程序的实践困境突破  

Recategorization:The Way out of the Practice Dilemma of Trial in Absentia

作　　者：王一超[1] Wang Yichao

机构地区：[1]中央民族大学法学院

出　　处：《中国社会科学院大学学报》2023年第9期117-135,140,共20页Journal of University of Chinese Academy of Social Sciences

基　　金：国家法治与法学理论研究项目“国际刑事司法合作视野下的缺席审判程序研究”(19SFB3026);中央民族大学青年教师科研能力提升计划项目“刑事缺席审判程序的实践路径研究”(2022QNPY42)的阶段性成果。

摘　　要：《刑事诉讼法》第291~295条未区分案件类型对境外型缺席审判程序适用统一的送达标准,并在裁判生效后一律给予重新审理机会。这种一体化设计易导致程序虚置的风险。比较法经验显示,境外型缺席审判程序可包含被告人主动放弃出庭权和未主动放弃出庭权两种类型,不同类型程序的适用条件不同,对送达要求及裁判生效后是否允许重新审理的态度存在差异。我国境外型缺席审判程序欲走出当前的实践困境,须进行再类型化改革:国家机关在送达方面应足够勤勉,但是否允许缺席审判不再“唯送达结果论”,而是通过送达结果识别程序类型;重新审理亦非普惠性救济,应根据不同类型给予分殊化的救济保障。According to Articles 291-295 of the Criminal Procedure Law,a uniform standard of delivery and the opportunity for retrial after judgement should be applied to all types of trials in absentia.However,the current integrated procedural design may render the trial proceedings in absentia unworkable in practice.Comparative law experience demonstrates the existence of two types of trial procedures in absentia:when the defendant expressly waives the right to appear in court,and when the defendant does not expressly waive this right.The applicable conditions,delivery requirements,and the allowance for retrial after the judgement taking effect differ for each procedure type.To address the current practice dilemma,a reform involving recategorization is necessary.State agencies should prioritize efforts on delivery,as the result of delivery should no longer be the sole criterion for initiating a trial in absentia,but rather a recognition criterion for procedure types.Additionally,the opportunity for retrial is not a universal remedy,and different procedural remedies should be given based on the type of procedure.

关 键 词：刑事缺席审判 再类型化 送达 重新审理 

分 类 号：D915.3[政治法律—诉讼法学]