我国刑事缺席审判“重审规则”的合理性证成——基于程序类型化的研究进路

The Rational Justification of "Re-examination Rules" in Criminal Default Judgment of China——Based on the Research Approach of Procedure Type

我国刑事缺席审判制度中的"重审规则"因不同于传统的救济程序引起了理论上的"合理性"质疑,但基于价值优先性选择的论证模式并不能有效排除争议,只有探寻新的论证模式才能明确"重审规则"是否合理。依据被告人的主观意志对启动缺席审判程序作用力大小的不同,可以将刑事缺席审判程序划分为选择型缺席审判、交往型缺席审判和规范型缺席审判三种类型。依据人权保障理论,除特殊情况外,选择型缺席审判和交往型缺席审判无需设置"重审规则",但规范型缺席审判需要设置"重审规则"来补偿被告人出庭权的减损。我国"重审规则"仅适用于规范型缺席审判,符合救济程序的设置规则,但可以扩展适用于被告人因重病不能参加庭审,近亲属选择缺席审判的情况。

Due to the difference compared with the traditional relief procedure,the"re-examination rules"in the criminal default judgement system of our country leads to the question of the"rationality"in theory.In terms of the demonstration mode,it is based on the priority of value,so it cannot effectively eliminate the dispute.Under this condition,only by exploring the new demonstration mode can help us get clear of whether the"re-examination rules"is reasonable or not.What’s more,the criminal default judgement can be divided into three types according to the different effect of the defendant’s subjective will on the initiation of the default judgement,such as selective default judgement,communicative default judgement and normative default judgement.Based on the theory of human rights protection,selective default judgement and communicative default do not need to set up"re-examination rules"except for special circumstances,while normative default judgement needs to set up"re-examination rules"to compensate the impairment of the defendant’s right to attend court.As for the"re-examination rules"in China,it is only applicable to the normative default judgement,which conforms to the rules of relief procedure,However,it may be extended to cases where the accused is unable to attend the trial due to serious illness and close relatives choose to conduct the trial in absentia.