| 摘要: |
| 刑事案件当庭宣判制度早在1979年刑事诉讼法立法时就已确立，但它首先被司法决策作为一个命题郑重提出来则是在1996年修法之后，至今二十余年来最高人民法院对待当庭宣判的政策变迁呈现出办案效率导向、司法公开导向和庭审实质化导向三种价值定位与政策形态，并最终形成速裁程序强制适用、简易程序优先适用、普通程序建议适用的整体布局、分层推进的方案。而当庭宣判的地方实践整体上回应了最高人民法院的政策导向，但呈现出差异化极大的两种面孔。一面是小部分典型法院打造了较高的当庭宣判率，另一面是诸多法院当庭宣判难以推进，最终定格为一种以办案效率导向为主的当庭宣判实践模式，主要适用于简单轻微案件，且司法资源配置低和高度固化，并存在较大随机性与异质性，呈现多元分化图景。2018年刑事诉讼法修法将当庭宣判实践从放任自流固化到速裁案件强制当庭宣判的制度格局，可期待当庭宣判率有所提升的实践图景，但要真正激发当庭宣判实践的革命，则还要看普通程序当庭宣判率，以当庭宣判成为常态为标志。而对当庭宣判的价值期待与政策定位应采取过程导向，当庭宣判率的“打造”还得回到打磨一套足够激励当庭宣判成为常态的程序机制上来，让当庭宣判成为实质化庭审的自然状态。 |
| 关键词: 当庭宣判 办案效率 司法公开 庭审实质化 制度激励 |
| DOI： |
| 分类号: |
| 基金项目: |
|
| The Changes in In court Judgment Pronouncement of Criminal Cases |
|
|
|
|
| Abstract: |
| The criminal in court judgment pronouncement system was established in 1979 by legislation, but it was not until 1996 that it was solemnly proposed in judicial practice for the first time after the revision of Criminal Procedure Law. From then on, the Supreme People's Court has been displaying changes in policy toward this system, referring to three value propositions and forms of policy： case handling efficiency oriented, judicial transparency oriented and trial substantialization oriented, and eventually formed an overall arrangement that carried forward layeredly, which requires that this system be applied compulsorily in fast track procedure, preferentially in summary procedure and suggestedly in ordinary procedure. The policy guidance of the Supreme People's Court has been responded generally by local judicial practice. However, there are two greatly different faces. On the one hand, there is a small group of courts which polish relatively high in court judgment pronouncement rate; on the other hand, there are many courts that stuck in propelling this system, and finally a case handling efficiency oriented dominated pattern was sealed in practice, which applies this system mainly to simple and minor cases, with low and highly fixed judicial resource allocation, as well as relatively great randomness and heterogeneity, showing a vision of great diversity. Since the 2018 Amendment of Criminal Procedure Law settled the drifting practice of in court judgment pronouncement into the institutional structure of mandatory application in the fast track procedure, we can expect a practical view of improving in court judgment pronouncement rate. However, for the real trigger of the revolution of in court judgment pronouncement in practice, we have to take the high application rate in ordinary cases and the normalization of pronouncing judgment in court as symbols. Furthermore, we should take a process oriented method when considering the value, the expectation and the policy proposition of in court judgment pronouncement, the “building” of in court judgment pronouncement rate should return to the foundation to strengthen basic skills. That is to improve procedural mechanism to an extent that is sufficient to encourage practice to realize the normalization of pronouncing judgment in court, making it a natural state in the substantial trial. |
| Key words: In-court Judgment Pronouncement, Case Handling Efficiency, Judicial Transparency, Trial Substantialization, Institutional Encouragement |
