权益分类	功能权益	普通用户	{{item.name}}会员
{{category.name}}	{{benefitItem.name}}

THE ROLES AND ETHICS OF THE CRIMINAL DEFENSE COUNSEL

刑事辩护律师的角色和职业道德

基本信息

批准号：
16203005
负责人：
MURAOKA Keiichi
金额：
$ 23.13万
依托单位：
Hitotsubashi University
依托单位国家：
日本
项目类别：
Grant-in-Aid for Scientific Research (A)
财政年份：
2004
资助国家：
日本
起止时间：
2004 至 2007
项目状态：
已结题

来源：
https://kaken.nii.ac.jp/en/grant/KAKENHI-PROJECT-16203005/
关键词：
CRIMINAL DEFENSE COUNSEL LEGAL ETHICS ETHICS FOR THE ATTORNEY PROSECUTORIAL ETHICS RULES OF PROFESSIONAL CONDUCT DISCIPLINARY ACTION RIGHT TO INTERVIEW WITH THE ACCUSED SHIBUSHI CASE 倫理規範代用監獄適正捜査誠実義務真実義務秘密交通権懲戒責任 2005年デ

项目摘要

New findings through this research are as follows ;1 While the judge and the prosecutor consider the defence counsel as a kind of judicial organ, the defence counsel considers himself as a representative of the client. This discrepancy of the understanding of the roles will cause a difference of the approach for the counsel to solve the ethical dilemma. Nowadays, there is a strong tendency at home and abroad to emphasize a lawyer's nature of the public organ rather than the one of the representative. But, given the confession-centered investigation in Japan, we should strike a balance between these two natures of the counsel, mainly based on the stance in favor of the nature of the representative in deciding the ethical approach. However, in reality, the defence counsel plays multi-faced roles under the specific circumstances. We should notice that there are several ways for the counsel to solve the dilemma in accordance with the different role under the specified circumstances.2 Behin … More d the disciplinary cases against the counsel who is condemned to abuse the right to interview with the accused, we can identify a specific reason that the defence counsel in Japan has to play a role of his family by exercising the citizen's right to communicate with the accused instead of the family who is prohibited to do so by the judicial order. Accordingly, a final disciplinary measure will depend on whichever stance the disciplinary board will take as for the role of the counsel. In real disciplinary proceedings, the board normally adopts a test of the professional discretion considering the total circumstances so that it may reach a conclusion that there is virtually no “misconduct" which results in any disciplinary measure. In this sense, there is a discrepancy between the code of conduct and the real criteria of the discipline in Japan.3 There are no ethical rules binding the prosecutor in Japan. Shibushi Case in which the prosecutor neglected the alibi evidence to get a conviction is a typical case showing lack of the understanding of the prosecutor's role as a jurist in the adversary system. We recommend that the ethical rules for the prosecutor be established immediately. Less

本研究的新发现如下：1 .法官和检察官将辩护律师视为一种司法机关，而辩护律师则将自己视为委托人的代表。这种角色理解上的差异，会导致律师解决伦理困境的方式不同。当前，国内外有一种强调律师的公共机关性质而非代理人性质的强烈倾向。但是，考虑到日本以供词为中心的调查，我们应该在检察官的这两种性质之间取得平衡，主要基于有利于代理人性质的立场来决定伦理方法。然而，在现实中，辩护律师在特定情况下扮演着多重角色。我们应该注意到，在特定的情况下，根据律师的不同角色，有几种解决困境的方法在针对律师滥用与被告面谈权利的惩戒案件中，我们可以找出一个具体的原因，即日本的辩护律师必须发挥其家庭的作用，行使公民与被告而不是司法命令所禁止的家庭的沟通权利。因此，最后的纪律措施将取决于纪律委员会对律师的作用采取何种立场。在实际的纪律程序中，监察委员会通常会考虑到整体情况，对专业裁量权进行测试，从而得出结论，认为实际上不存在导致任何纪律措施的“不当行为”。从这个意义上说，日本的行为准则与该学科的真正标准之间存在差异。3日本没有约束检察官的道德规则。Shibushi案中检察官忽视不在场证据而定罪的案例是典型的对辩诉制度中检察官作为法学家角色认识不足的案例。我们建议立即制定检察官的道德规则。少