When the unjust case responsibility to promote fair and open financial Sohu-ca4111

When the unjust case responsibility to promote fair and open – Sohu financial observers should process publicly accountable unjust case, open the basis and standard, even the introduction of external supervision mechanism. Recently, there have been two rehabilitates unjust case. In February 1st, the Zhejiang provincial high court according to the law of the Chen Man murder, arson retrial open verdict, revocation of the original judgment, Chen declared full of innocence. In February 4th, the high court of Fujian made a retrial on the robbery of Xu Yusen, Xu Jinlong, Zhang Meilai and Cai Jinsen in Putian, declaring that the 4 person was not guilty. The first of them has been arrested since February 28, 1994, nearly 22 years ago. There is no doubt that the two 20 years of unjust case will pull the curtain of responsibility. But people worry that, from past practice, many unjust case few people bear criminal responsibility. In this regard, first of all, based on the rule of law, from the perspective of development to see the problem. From the last century, 79 years to 97 years of criminal law criminal law, and then to the more than 10 years of this century a number of "criminal law amendment", as well as unjust case correction, criminal law protection to all of the suspect and the defendant has been strengthened, the protection of human rights, legality, suspected crime has been further implemented from the principles of philosophy. As a vindication of unjust case as legal liability of misjudged cases, investigators also must strictly comply with the provisions of the criminal law and the criminal procedure law, conviction to the facts are clear, there is ample evidence, the standard of proof beyond reasonable doubt. Moreover, due to the long history and large changes in personnel, some key evidence has been difficult to find out, and the specific responsibility can not be implemented. Moreover, after a lapse of many years, the problem of the limitation of prosecution may also arise. But these reasons are not necessarily understandable to most people. However, unlike the criminal responsibility, since eighteen more emphasis on strict discipline in state law, party and government responsibility is do wrong must bear. Especially for those in the extremely bad influence on the unjust case of disciplinary rules deal with misjudged cases, how to promote the public fair is worth studying. Who is the first to implement the party and government responsibility. It is urgent to set up a relatively independent and convincing subject to promote the judicial reform and actively promote and perfect the judicial responsibility system. Secondly, openness is the key to justice in the process. The process is open and accountable unjust case should be open, the basis and standard, even the introduction of external oversight mechanisms (such as hearing). Moreover, the final report information should be disclosed to the public, including how to determine the specific responsible person, where their dereliction of duty and dereliction of duty. Only publicity can ensure that external supervision and mass supervision are not castles in the air. Finally, it is necessary to implement the law of the recovery of the responsible person and establish an apology mechanism. According to the "State Compensation Law", after the compensation organ has made compensation for damages, it shall order the staff who have intentional or serious negligence to bear part or all of the compensation fees. However, since the implementation of the state compensation law, public reports have never appeared in cases where the responsible person has been recovered. In addition, inquisition by torture as a result of a miscarriage of justice, first of all is to be their personal rights violations, according to the original infringement, may wish to establish a "restitution").

冤案追责当以公开促公正-搜狐财经   观察家  冤案追责应该公开处理过程,公开处理的依据和标准,甚至可引进外部监督机制。  近期,有两起冤案平反昭雪。2月1日,浙江省高院依法对陈满故意杀人、放火再审案公开宣判,撤销原审裁判,宣告陈满无罪。2月4日,福建省高院对莆田许玉森、许金龙、张美来、蔡金森抢劫一案作出再审宣判,宣告4人无罪。他们中的第一个自1994年2月28日被抓至今已近22年。  毫无疑问,这两起20多年的冤案即将拉开追责的大幕。但人们忧虑的是,从以往的实践看,很多冤案少有人承担刑事责任。对此,首先还是要立足法治,从发展的眼光看问题。  从上个世纪的79年刑法到97年刑法,再到本世纪十多年来的若干个《刑法修正案》,与冤案的纠正一样,刑法对所有犯罪嫌疑人和被告人的保护得到了普遍的加强,保护人权、罪刑法定、疑罪从无等原则理念得到了进一步贯彻执行。如同平反冤案错案一样,追究办案者的法律责任同样要严格遵照刑法和刑事诉讼法规定,定罪要达到事实清楚,证据确实充分,排除一切合理怀疑的证明标准。况且,由于年代久远,人员变动大,有的关键证据已难查清,具体责任就不能落实。再说,时隔多年,还可能产生追诉时效已过的问题。只不过,这些原因对于大多数民众来说未必都能够理解。  不过,与刑事追责不同,十八大以来更加强调“党纪严于国法”,党纪政纪责任则是办错案者必须承担的。尤其是针对那些在全国影响极其恶劣的冤案错案,党纪政纪处理如何以公开促进公平公正颇值得研究。  首先是谁来落实党纪政纪责任。在大力推进司法改革,积极倡导完善司法责任制的今天,设定一个相对独立令人信服的主体来落实错案追责已迫在眉睫。  其次,在处理程序上,公开是促进公正的关键。冤案追责应该公开处理过程,公开处理的依据和标准,甚至可引进外部监督机制(如听证)。而且,最后的调查报告信息也要向社会公开,包括如何确定具体责任人,他们失职渎职在什么地方等。唯有公开,才能保证外部监督和群众监督不是空中楼阁。  最后,就是要依法落实对责任人的追偿和建立赔礼道歉机制。根据《国家赔偿法》规定,赔偿义务机关赔偿损失后,应当责令有故意或者重大过失的工作人员等承担部分或者全部赔偿费用。但自《国家赔偿法》施行至今,公开报道从未出现过责任人被追偿的案件。此外,刑讯逼供等导致的冤狱,首先就是对受冤者人身权利的侵害,针对当初的侵害,不妨建立“恢复原状”的弥补方式,即追加一个责任人与受冤者面对面的赔礼道歉程序,这不仅可以起到警示他人的作用,对于被冤枉者,也是最好的精神抚慰。  金泽刚(同济大学法学院教授)相关的主题文章: