摘要
在被告人不到场的情形下,引入缺席审理程序,本身并没有违反国际公约的明确要求。如果被告人没有被正式地告知针对自己的刑事程序,虽然可以对他缺席判决有罪,但是当他未来到案时,应该有权要求全面地对案件进行重新审理。虽然缺席审理程序无法实现实体刑法过度杀伤的目的,也无法促进刑事诉讼发现案件真实,但是却能基于被追诉人对缺席审理的同意去实现正当性。缺席审理程序的功能不在于保全证据,而应该着眼于整合的一般预防功能。因此,缺席审理程序应该只作出定罪部分的中间判决,个人罪责以及刑度的确定应该被保留到被告人归案以后再予以确定。
In the defendant’s absence, the trial of absenteeism does not itself violate the explicit requirements of international conventions. But when the accused is not formally informed about his criminal proceedings, he should have the right to request a full retrial of the case after entry of appearance, although he has been sentenced to the guilty. The rial in the defendant’s absence could be justified based on the accused’s consent, although it is unable not only to achieve the purpose of excessive criminal killing of substantive criminal law but also finding the truth of case. The most important objective of trial in the defendant’s absence should be the integrated general prevention. As a result, by means of this kind of trial the Defendant should be interlocutory convicted. The responsibility and criterion for imposing penalty should not decided until the defendant’s entry of appearance.
作者
程捷(译)
Bernd Schünemann;CHENG Jie
出处
《经贸法律评论》
2020年第4期126-136,共11页
Business and Economic Law Review
关键词
缺席审理程序
证据保全
整合的一般预防
中间判决
Trial in the Defendant’s Absence
Preservation of Evidence
Integrated General Prevention
Interlocutory Judgment
