作为对死刑案件设置的特殊程序，复核程序是我国死刑案件刑事诉讼过程的关键一环，承载着控制死刑数量、防错纠偏以及统一死刑适用标准的重要职能。死刑案件在复核阶段的审理方式，直接关系到程序功能的实现，其制度设计和程序架构应当更为审慎。死刑复核程序从魏晋南北朝时期滥觞，制度绵延千年，是中华法系宝贵的制度成果。但随着社会的发展和司法观念的进步，现行死刑复核程序行政式、封闭式的审查方式已不能适应现代刑事诉讼的要求。本文从死刑复核的性质定位入手，分析和考察我国死刑复核制度的历史，归纳法制史中死刑复核程序的特点，并从中吸收和借鉴有益之处为现代改革提供范本。在死刑复核的性质上，死刑复核程序应当定位为一种审判程序。从审判程序的属性出发，推进死刑复核的司法属性构建，逐步实现死刑案件审理方式的诉讼化改造，是维护司法公正和权威、切实保障被追诉人诉讼权利的应有之义。在“以审判为中心”的诉讼制度改革大背景下，死刑复核程序的诉讼化也是庭审实质化的重要体现。在将审判程序作为死刑复核程序基础属性的前提下，本文分析和评价了现行死刑复核审理模式的弊端，并对当下学界对于死刑复核审理方式的两种改革方案进行了法理评析和可行性讨论。三审终审制的审级改造提出了就死刑案件建立独立的第三审级的构想，由最高法院行使审查法律审的职能，统一法律适用。这一改革思路虽然建立起完备的审级构造，但其实现正义有余而效率不足。而且在实体探知主义的指导下，查明案件事实仍是当下死刑复核程序的首要追求，抛弃死刑复核查明案件事实的职能不具有可行性。就准诉讼改造模式而言，本文提出建立一种以听证审为典型模式的制度设计作为我国死刑复核案件审理方式改革的现实方案。尽管其司法属性有所欠缺，但在现有的司法框架内，听证审的准诉讼模式建立起形式上的控辩审三方参与的审理格局，是对当前死刑复核“听取意见规则”的发展和革新。从程序的功能上讲，这一模式弥补了现有审查模式的不足，是死刑复核程序诉讼化改造的有益探索，也有助于复核程序防错纠偏的功能实现。长远来看，准诉讼化的听证模式是稳健可行的过渡式方案，也为实现死刑案件的三审终审制改造提供了制度和实践上的准备。
The death penalty review procedure is a special course in view of capital cases in China's criminal procedure, which undertakes the important functions of controlling the number of death penalty, preventing mistakes and rectifying deviations and unifying the applicable standards of death penalty. As the most important part of the death penalty review procedure, the trial method should be more cautious in its system design and program structure. The procedure of death penalty review originated from the Northern Wei Dynasty, and the system has been extended for thousands of years, which is a valuable institutional achievement of the Chinese legal system. However, with the development of society and the progress of judicial concept, the current administrative and closed review method of death penalty review procedure can no longer meet the requirements of modern criminal proceedings.Starting with the nature of death penalty review, this paper analyzes and inspects the history of death penalty review system in China, summarizes the characteristics of death penalty review procedure in legal history, and absorbs and draws lessons from it to provide a model for modern reform. With regard to the essence of death penalty review, it should be positioned as a trial procedure. Starting from the nature of the trial procedure, it is an inevitable requirement to realize the litigation transformation of the death penalty review trial mode, which is to protect the defendant's litigation rights and realize judicial justice. On the premise that the judicial attribute is the most basic attribute pertaining to the death penalty review procedure, this paper analyzes and evaluates the disadvantages of the current death penalty review trial mode, which makes a legal analysis and feasibility discussion on the two reform schemes of the death penalty review trial mode in the current academic circles.The reform of the trial level of the third-instance final adjudication system puts forward the idea of establishing an independent third-instance trial level for death penalty cases, with the Supreme Court exercising the function of reviewing legal trials and standardizing the implementation of laws. Although this reform idea has established a complete trial-level structure, it is more than enough to achieve justice but less efficient. Moreover, under the guidance of the doctrine of entity exploration, finding out the facts of the case is still the primary pursuit of the current death penalty review procedure. It is not feasible to abandon the function of reviewing the death penalty and finding out the facts of the case. As far as the quasi-litigation reform mode is concerned, this paper proposes to establish a system design with hearing trial as a typical model as a realistic scheme for the reform of the trial mode of death penalty review cases in China. Although its judicial attribute is lacking, within the existing judicial framework, the quasi-litigation mode of hearing trial establishes a formal trial pattern in which the prosecution, the defense and the trial participate, which is the development and innovation of the current "hearing rules" for death penalty review. From the function of the procedure, this mode makes up for the deficiency of the existing review mode, is a useful exploration of the litigation innovation in the field of death penalty, which also helps to realize the function of error prevention and rectification of the review procedure. In the long run, the quasi-litigious hearing mode is a stable and feasible transitional scheme, and it also provides institutional and practical preparations for the reform of the system of final adjudication of death penalty cases.
