【作者】 赵鑫；

【导师】 张云鹏；

【作者基本信息】 辽宁大学 ， 法律（非法学）（专业学位）， 2024， 硕士

【摘要】 司法实践中“案多人少”的情况一直存在,如果每一个案件都按照普通程序或是简易程序来审理,必定会延长办案周期,降低法官们的判案效率。为了缩短办案周期,提高诉讼效率,解决可利用司法资源与案件数量不匹配的问题,我国在2014年开始了刑事速裁程序的初步探索工作。经过四年试点的经验积累和总结,于2018年正式将刑事速裁程序写入了法律条文中,成为我国处理轻罪案件的重要刑事诉讼程序。刑事速裁程序作为一种特殊的审判程序,对于优化司法资源的配置,维护被告人的权益,缓解办案机关“案多人少”的压力具有重要意义。但是,一直以来我国刑事速裁程序的实际运行效果并不理想,出现诸多问题亟待完善:一是刑事速裁程序的适用范围划定不合理,这是导致速裁程序适用率偏低的重要原因;二是刑事速裁程序的审理方式存在不足,这在很大程度上影响着司法资源的优化和诉讼效率的提升;三是刑事速裁程序救济机制运行不畅,这不仅会妨碍诉讼效率的提升,还无法保障当事人的合法权益;四是在刑事速裁程序中值班律师法律帮助作用有限,不利于实现司法公正。就这些问题的研究,综合域外经验和我国的司法现状,对速裁程序立法上的不足以及司法实践中可能会出现的问题提出了完善设想:首先,在法律规范层面更加明确的界定速裁程序与简易程序的适用范围,在司法实践中利用人工智能技术辅助司法人员对案件进行分流,同时取消欠正当的禁止性规定;其次,提高速裁案件的审理质效,强化对认罪认罚的审查处理并增设书面化审理方式;再次,通过建立程序转换监督机制并增加上诉审查环节来健全程序救济制度;最后,通过构建速裁案件的指定辩护制度保障被告人获得有效的法律帮助。构建刑事速裁程序是我国司法改革的重要内容之一,是立足于我国国情和司法现实的重要创新。如果刑事速裁程序的功能不能彰显,就难以提高诉讼效率,也难以实现审判公正。更多还原

【Abstract】 The situation of "more cases and fewer people" has always existed injudicial practice.If every case is tried according to ordinary or summary procedures,it will inevitably prolong the case handling cycle and reduce the efficiency of judges in sentencing.In order to shorten the case handling cycle,improve litigation efficiency,and solve the problem of mismatch between available judicial resources and the number of cases,China began preliminary exploration of the criminal speedy procedures in 2014.After four years of experience accumulation and summary,the criminal speedy procedure was officially included in the legal provisions in 2018,becoming an important criminal litigation procedure for handling minor crime cases in China.The criminal speedy procedure,as a special type of trial procedure,is of great significance in optimizing the allocation of judicial resources,protecting the rights and interests of defendants,alleviating the pressure of "more cases and fewer people" on the investigating authorities.However,the actual operation effect of China’s criminal speedy procedure has not been ideal,and there are many problems that need to be improved.Firstly,the scope of application of criminal expedited proceedure is not reasonably defined,which is an important reason for the low application rate of the speedy procedure;Secondly,there are deficiencies in the trial methods of the criminal speedy procedure,which greatly affect the optimization of judicial resources and the improvement of litigation efficiency;Thirdly,the relief mechanism for the criminal speedy procedure is not functioning smoothly,which not only hinders the improvement of litigation efficiency,but also fails to protect the legitimate rights and interests of the parties involved;Fourthly,the legal assistance role of on duty lawyers in the criminal speedy procedure is limited,which is not conducive to achieving judicial fairness.Based on the research on these issues,combined with foreign experiences and the current judicial situation in China,a comprehensive plan has been proposed to address the shortcomings in the legislation of the speedy procedure and the potential problems that may arise injudicial practice.Firstly,at the level of legal norms,the scope of application of the speedy procedure and summary procedures should be more clearly defined,and artificial intelligence technology should be used to assist judicial personnel in diverting cases in judicial practice.At the same time,unfair prohibitive provisions should be abolished;Secondly,improve the quality and efficiency of the trial of expedited cases,strengthen the review and handling of confession and punishment,and add a written trial method;Once again,by establishing a supervision mechanism for program conversion and increasing the appeal review process,we can improve the procedural relief system;Finally,by establishing a designated defense system for expedited cases,the defendant is guaranteed effective legal assistance.Building the criminal speedy procedure is one of the important contents of China’s judicial reform,and it is an important innovation based on China’s national conditions and judicial reality.If the function of the criminal speedy procedure cannot be demonstrated,it will be difficult to improve litigation efficiency and achieve fair trial.更多还原