摘要
马乐案基于法律错误而再审改判,除刑事实体法上关涉援引法定刑之解释,亦有程序探讨之价值。基于宪法上的法律监督职责,检察机关对确有错误的已生效裁判提起再审抗诉有其积极意义。然而,实事求是、有错必纠的价值取向却与法的安定性、裁判的既判力理论冲突,也与禁止双重危险、有利被告等原则相悖,不符合司法规律和诉讼原理的要求。应在追求实体公正与维护法的安定性、裁判的既判力之间寻求平衡,秉持现代司法理念,确立禁止双重危险原则。应将审判监督程序分为对事实错误的再审程序和对法律错误的特别抗诉程序,并区分有利于被告人的再审和不利于被告人的再审。对事实错误,通常只能提出有利于被告人的再审,目的在于实现个案公正;对法律错误,应由最高人民检察院向最高人民法院提出特别抗诉加以纠正,目的在于保证法律统一正确实施。
The Ma Le case is a retrial on the basis of legal error. In addition to the interpretation of the criminal entity law, it also has the value of the procedure research. Based on the constitutional supervisory duties, it has positive significance for the procuratorial organs to bring the retrial protest against the valid referees. However, the value orientation of seeking truth from facts and correcting mistakes is in contradiction with the stability of law, the theory of res judicata and the principle of prohibiting double danger and benefiting defendants, and does not accord with the requirements of judicial law and litigation principle. We should seek the balance between the substantive justice and the stability of the law, the referee's res judicata, uphold the modern judicial idea, and establish the principle of prohibiting double danger. The trial supervision procedure should be divided into retrial procedure for wrong facts and special protest procedure for legal errors, and distinguish between the retrial of the defendant and the retrial of the defendant. In the case of legal errors, the defendant's retrial should be made only to achieve the fairness of the case. Special protests should be put forward by the Supreme People's Procuratorate to the Supreme People's Court and the lawsuits should be corrected with a view to ensuring the uniform and correct implementation of the law.
出处
《河南社会科学》
CSSCI
北大核心
2016年第10期26-33,共8页
Henan Social Sciences
基金
基金项目:国家2011计划司法文明协同创新中心成果
关键词
马乐案
法律错误
刑事审判
监督程序
再审抗诉
特别抗诉
Ma Le Case
Legal Error
Criminal Trial
Supervision Procedure
Retrial Protest
SpecialProtest
