法学专业毕业论文外文翻译----死刑听证制问题研究-法律法学(编辑修改稿)

法学专业毕业论文外文翻译----死刑听证制问题研究-法律法学(编辑修改稿)内容摘要：

esses his will to plea guilty, the public trial can not be exempted. In death penalty cases the accused, his relatives and friends, and the general public pay more attention to the trial, hence the information disclosed shall be more detailed, including the basic information of the death row prisoner, the details of the case, and the grounds and reasons for the judgment. Except for individual cases, the total number, the mutation and the execution of death penalty cases of the nation and each local area shall be disclosed so that the public can understand state death penalty policy and various reasons for the fair management of cases. Currently some countries in the world do not publish the relevant data on death penalty. For example, in Japan the public is not provided with the information on individual executions, but detailed aggregated statistics are provided. The UN Economic and Social Council has requested that the SecretaryGeneral survey member states on their use of capital punishment at fiveyear intervals since 1973,7 but the response rate has been very low. In a survey on 62 countries that retain the death penalty, 87% did not respond at all, and only 4 countries reported on the offences upon which the death penalty may be imposed and on the total number of Some countries rational for retaining capital punishment is that capital punishment conforms to the national conditions, including the will of the It is of course a point of consideration whether the public are in favor of or want to retain death penalty or not. Before considering the will of the people, we should give the people information on death penalty. If the data of death penalty is not made known to the people, how can the necessity of death penalty be implemented based on it being the will of the people? Only by publishing the data of death penalty can the public possibly have the right understanding of death penalty。 people can only put forward their opinions after knowing about the truth, and then can the government know the true will of the people. There is an obvious inconsistency when a state invokes the public opinions on one hand。 while on the other hand deliberately withholds relevant information on the use of the death penalty from the public. If public opinions are really an important consideration for a country, it seems the government shall facilitate the access to the relevant information so as to make such public opinions more informed. It is unreasonable for a country to use the will of the people as an important reason to retain the death penalty but refuse to disclose to its own people the extent of death penalty. The open information on the judgment and the execution of death penalty cases is of special and important significance to a person who faces the death penalty and his family. A person who has been convicted of a crime and sentenced to death still enjoys the due process rights and other safeguards on his rights before execution of the sentence. For example, the prisoner under death sentence “shall have the right to his conviction and sentence being reviewed by a higher tribunal according to law”13, and “shall have the right to seek pardon or mutation of the sentence”14. Failure to promptly provide the death row prisoner and his family information on the case may hinder their ability to exercise these rights, hence placing due process at risk. The execution of death penalty cases shall also be made known to the public to protect the public’s right to know. The publishing of the judgment and execution of death penalty cases。 allow victims of criminal cases and their relatives and friends to know that justice has been done and the criminals have been executed。 allow the public to know the execution of specific cases and the overall situation of the state’s death penalty policy。 and show some people who are likely to mit crimes the power and force of laws thus deterring serious of the Relevant Issues over Public Hearing in Death Penalty Cases in China Public hearing is the basic principle of China’s criminal justice system. Article 125 of China’s Constitution provides that “except in special circumstances as spec。