公诉审查制度改革之我见——比较法视野下的制度选择

My Views on Reforming the System of Public Prosecution Censorship

从"目的论"出发,"符合立法初衷的制度应该是合适的制度"为判断标准。通过比较两大法系的典型代表——德美对公诉审查制度的规定,发现其立法目的并不适合我国的司法环境(且其本身亦有缺陷)。我国应坚持1996年修法时改革此制度的初衷——克服"庭前预断"、实现庭审实质化,效仿日本实行彻底的"起诉状一本主义",并辅以庭前在形式上对争点的确立程序。

Based on teleology, systems in accordance with the original intention of legislation should be appropriate ones. By comparing the regulation on the system of public prosecution censorship between German and America, we find that their legislative objectives do not suit the judicial environment in China. Our country should insist on the original intention of amending and reforming the law in 1996 ,get rid of forejudge before court, make trial substantively ,follow Japan and carry out through indictment -only doctrine, with the establishment procedure of disputes before court before court.