摘要
一般认为,在沃伦法院时期,美国最高法院法官在宪法判例中积极进行扩张解释,扩充了被告人沉默权、排除违法证据、律师帮助权等基本权利。实际上,沃伦法院刑事诉讼判例真实的历史是:为维护联邦制稳定,通过判例促成守法政府与有限政府,避免行政权力在刑事司法中肆意侵犯公民人权,以回应美国当时的种族平等权运动。反种族歧视运动间接影响了沃伦法院的刑事诉讼判例结果。总体而言,在将宪法修正案的多数条款适用于各州的同时,沃伦法院的刑事诉讼革命至少是部分失败的,主要在于司法审查标准上的矛盾、司法哲学上的局限性以及试图制定警察执法规范等原因所导致。参鉴沃伦法院的成败得失,我们既可以在合理确立法官的功能定位时追求实现个案正义,又能够在寻找改革的契机缓和个人权利与公共安全的冲突,以及为刑事被告人诉讼权利的保障创造条件等方面做出进一步的努力。
In the process of judicial review, the Supreme Court of Warren did all it could to give broad interpretation to the Constitution, so as guarantee the suspect＇ s fundamental rights, such as the right to keep silence, the right to apply for the suppression of illegal evi- dence, and the right to legal assistance. The purposes of Warren Court＇ s judicial practice were to uphold the stability of the Federation, to promote the development of a limited and law-abid- ing government, to prevent the violation of civil rights in the administration of criminal justice, so as to better respond to the racial equality movement of that time. The anti-racism movement had exerted an indirect impact on Warren Court＇s case law. Generally speaking, the Criminal Procedure Revolution launched by Warren Court had failed, at least partially, for a number of reasons, including inconsistency in its case law, defects in judicial philosophy, and improper attempt to make rules on law enforcement for the police. China should draw on Warren Court＇ s experience in the reasonable determination of the role of judges and, while pursuing justice in individual cases, seek reform opportunities to alleviate the conflicts between individual rights and public safety, so as to create better conditions for the safeguarding of the litigation rights of criminal defendants.
出处
《环球法律评论》
CSSCI
北大核心
2015年第2期125-140,共16页
Global Law Review
基金
作者主持的2012国家社会科学基金项目"刑事程序法的功能研究"之研究成果
项目批准号:12CFX044
教育部2012基金资助项目研究成果
项目批准号:12YJC820008
作者简介
刘磊，苏州大学法学院副教授。
