【正文】 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。 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. 為了公正和公開審判，死刑公眾聽證制的完善是必要的。這意味著法律制定者認為死刑 復(fù)核程序是審判程序的一部分。國外死刑案件的二審?fù)ǔ２惶幚硎聦崋栴}，而是法律問題，尤其是程序和證據(jù)的收集是否合法。 ，公開宣判的模式 起訴議案和死刑案宣判的透明度，尤其是宣判依據(jù)和所應(yīng)用的法律，不僅反映了公眾對被告人的看法，對法律的傳播和教育也起到了很大的作用。例如，法庭容量是有限制的，也許人們在旁聽死刑案件的時候只能沒有座位，這顯然會印象公眾聽證制的效果。對宣判和死刑執(zhí)行的公布使案件受害者及其家人好友知道司法的公正并且罪犯已經(jīng)唄懲治；使公眾了解個案的執(zhí)行和國家死刑政策的總體情況；并且向那些想要犯罪的人現(xiàn)實法律的力量，促使他們停止犯罪。當政府一方面援引公眾意見，而另一方面卻故意向公眾隱瞞死刑作用的相關(guān)信息，這便自相矛盾了。 現(xiàn)今世界上一些國家沒有公布死刑的相關(guān)數(shù)據(jù)。被告人有權(quán)接到宣判文件，且被告人不能放棄或拒絕國家司法部門將案件結(jié)果公之于眾。公眾聽證制包括公開審判和公開宣判，兩者都包括幾個方面。死刑案的公眾聽證制在維護司法公正性和保障人的權(quán)利有著重大的意義，并且早已獲得國內(nèi)外 的關(guān)注。在形式上，公開審判有兩個要求：首先，包括案件名稱、起訴罪名、被告人身份、法庭審判的時間地點和出庭人員在內(nèi)的信息必須提前公布；其次，必須為公眾的旁聽提供足夠的便利，任何人都應(yīng)當被允許參加旁聽，而記者也應(yīng)被允許對審判進行報道。在一些西方國家，普通刑事案件的被告可以放棄審判的權(quán)利，然而在死刑案件中，即使被告人有自證其罪的意愿，公開審判仍是不可避免的。當然，這只是一種考慮，取決于公眾是否想要保留死刑。例如，依據(jù)法律，一個被判死刑的罪犯的罪行應(yīng)當有更高一級的法庭進行復(fù)核，或應(yīng)當擁有尋求赦免或減刑的權(quán)利。對于被告人未委托辯護人的，告知被告人可以委托辯護人，或者在必要的時候指定承擔(dān)法律援助義務(wù)的律師 為其提供辯護； （三）將開庭的時間、地點在開庭三日以前通知人民檢察院； （四）傳喚當事人，通知辯護人、訴訟代理人、證人、鑒定人和翻譯人員，傳票和通知書至遲在開庭三日以前送達； （五）公開審判的案件，在開庭三日以前先期公布案由、被告人姓名、開庭時間和地點。所以，庭審記錄的公開取決于判斷，志向那些有需要的人員公開。在新聞上發(fā)表死刑案并不是一種正式的公開方式，因為這通常是從新聞的角度選擇性的發(fā)表一 些案子，而且是節(jié)選部分宣判；在中國，對于案子的編輯并非是系統(tǒng)化的，沒有固定結(jié)構(gòu)，并不能完整地反映死刑案。在回收死刑復(fù)核權(quán)之后，最高院發(fā)布文件統(tǒng)一死刑復(fù)核程序。 3，結(jié)論 各國應(yīng)當根據(jù)不同的國情來做不同的決定。 any individuals shall be allowed to visit the court on the hearing and journalists shall be allowed to report the hearing. Participation in the public trial shall not be limited to certain types of people。 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 specified by law, all cases in the courts are heard in public.” Article 11 of China’s Criminal Law provides that “cases in the courts shall be heard in public, unless otherwise provided by this Law”. (4) to summon the parties and notify the defenders, agents ad litem, witnesses, expert witnesses and interpreters, and deliver the summons and notices no later than three days before the opening of the court session。 Open Court Records and Other Documents After all, only a limited number of people can attend court trials and some people can not arrive at the court on time for various reasons, and the visitors may not hear everything nor understand it correctly. For cases that have public hearings, it will improve the effect of public hearings if the court can publicize court trial records (transcript) through certain channels. Not every member of the public needs to read the plete court record of a certain case. People or organs that are obligated to supervise the case, the defense lawyer, people who are related to the case, news agencies that are interested in the case and scholars who study the case are the ones who will desire a full transcript of a given case. As a result, the publicity of court records differs from that of the judgment and can be made available only to those who have a need to it. As providing court records involve some cost, the court may charge those who need the records. Since public hearings can be attended and reported, people may know whether court trials are fair. Modes of Public Judgment The transparency of the bill of prosecution and the judgment of death penalty cases, especially the reasons for judgment and law applied, not only reflects the public handling of the accused, but also plays the role of legal propag