我国刑事缺席审判制度的程序困境与技术突围

The Procedural Dilemma and Technical Breakthrough of Criminal Default Judgment System in China

2018年刑事诉讼法修正案依然采用“补丁式”的惯常修法模式,将缺席审判制度直接镶嵌在特别程序一编之中,并未关照与协调刑事诉讼的既有制度,同时受笼统立法的影响,导致我国缺席审判制度面临与违法所得没收程序竞合,重新审理机制不明,送达制度如何执行等三方面的程序困境。从我国的司法实践来看,缺席审判制度与违法所得没收程序两者均不可或缺,可以考量突出两者程序的特点,协调、衔接两程序的适用。在具体路径的安排上,结合我国司法实际,对缺席审判制度的具体程序进行系统性构建,保障被告人知晓缺席审判程序及其程序选择权,协调缺席审判与没收程序的关系及衔接适用,明确重新审理的具体程序设置,完善送达制度,以破解程序困境,保障制度合法合理规范运行。

In 2018, the amendments to the Criminal Procedure Law still adopt the “patch-type” customary practice model, which directly embeds the trial system of absentia in the special procedures, not caring for and coordinating the existing system of criminal proceedings. As a result, China’s default trial system faces procedural dilemma in three aspects: the competition for the confiscation of illegal income, the unrecognized mechanism and the implementation of the delivery system. Judging from the judicial practice in our country, both the trial system of absenteeism and the confiscation procedure of illegal income are indispensable. We can consider the characteristics of the two procedures, and coordinate and link the application of the two procedures. In the arrangement of specific paths, combining with the judicial practice of our country, we should systematically construct the specific procedures of the trial system in absentia, guarantee the defendant’s knowledge of the absentee trial procedure and its procedural choice, coordinate the relationship between the trial of trial and the confiscation procedure and clarify the application. To re-examine the specific procedures, improving the delivery system can solve the procedural dilemma and ensure the legal and reasonable operation of the trial system.