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

Study on the Purpose of Criminal Statutes of Limitation : Comparison with the Guarantee of Speedy Trial

刑事诉讼时效目的研究：与速审保障的比较

基本信息

批准号：
21730062
负责人：
HARADA Kazuyuki
金额：
$ 0.83万
依托单位：
Okayama University
依托单位国家：
日本
项目类别：
Grant-in-Aid for Young Scientists (B)
财政年份：
2009
资助国家：
日本
起止时间：
2009 至 2010
项目状态：
已结题

来源：
https://kaken.nii.ac.jp/grant/KAKENHI-PROJECT-21730062/
关键词：
公訴時効迅速な裁判を受ける権利刑事訴訟法迅速な裁判

项目摘要

The purpose of this study is to research on the U.S. federal courts cases refer to the relationship between the Sixth Amendment guarantee of speedy trial and criminal statute of limitations, and to clarify the purpose of the criminal statutes of limitations. The result are summarized as follows;(1) The Supreme Court has long identified that the Speedy Trial Clause is not primarily intended to prevent prejudice to the defense caused by passage of time, and the primary guarantee against overly stale criminal charges is the statute of limitations(2) So the role of the Clause in protecting defendants in pre-indictment delay has been very limited, and defendants who have not incarcerated are held to high standard in making out a constitutional pre-indictment claim under Speedy Trial Clause and Due Process Claim.(3) However, in Doggett v. United States (1992), the most recently decided cases about this problem, the Court held that limiting the possibility the defense will be impaired by passage of time is an independent and fundamental objective of the Clause, and furthermore, affirmative proof of particularized prejudice is not essential to every speedy trial claim.

本研究的目的是研究美国联邦法院案件中提到的第六修正案保障的快速审判与刑事诉讼时效之间的关系，并阐明刑事诉讼时效的目的。结果总结如下：（1）最高法院早就认定，快速审判条款的主要目的不是防止因时间的推移而对辩护造成的损害，防止过于陈旧的刑事指控的主要保障是时效（2）因此，该条款在保护被告在起诉前拖延中的作用非常有限，没有被监禁的被告在根据快速审判条款和正当程序要求提出宪法起诉前要求时被认为是高标准的。(3)然而，在Doggett v. United States（1992）一案中，最高法院认为，限制辩护方因时间的推移而受到损害的可能性是该条款的一个独立和基本目标，而且，具体化的偏见的肯定证据并不是每一个快速审判请求所必需的。