【正文】 gregated 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 with some exceptions prescribed by laws and regulations such as court deliberation, anyone that wishes to attend the hearing shall not be rejected。在那些保留死刑的國家，死刑案必須根據(jù)已定的國際法和國內(nèi)法中的公眾聽證制 原則來處理。這些文件包括最高院對有關(guān)死刑案件問題的規(guī)定，確立了對被告人的審問程序、調(diào)查與核實(shí)證據(jù)、采取辯護(hù)律師的意見、完善死刑復(fù)核程序等，并且已經(jīng)去的了顯著成效。隨著網(wǎng)絡(luò)的普及，在網(wǎng)絡(luò)上發(fā)表死刑案能夠避免以上傳統(tǒng)模式的弊端。如果庭審記錄的公開需要費(fèi)用，那么法庭可以向那些要獲得記錄的人索要。 ，死刑案聽證制的參加 公眾聽證制最顯著的表現(xiàn)是允許公眾進(jìn)行旁聽。沒有即使向罪犯及其家人提供案件信息可能會給他們行使權(quán)利帶來阻礙，因此而至程序正當(dāng)于危險之中。在此之前，我們必須想公眾公布死刑的信息。 在死刑案件中，被告、其親朋好友和普通大眾會更關(guān)注審判，因此關(guān)于案件信息的揭露應(yīng)當(dāng)更加詳細(xì)，最好包括死者和被告人的信息，案件的具體情況，宣判的依據(jù)和原因。公開審判的參加人員不能被限制于某一特定類型；但 是法律法規(guī)指定的例外，比如法庭審議，任何想要參加旁聽的人都不能被拒絕；所有的法庭活動，尤其是詢問證人和檢驗(yàn)證據(jù)都應(yīng)該公開進(jìn)行。本文將解釋美國相關(guān)死刑聽證制機(jī)構(gòu)的條件，從權(quán)利和義務(wù)角度定義公眾聽證制的性質(zhì)，分析死刑公眾聽證制的特殊內(nèi)涵，介紹外國的一些死刑聽證制的案例，并且分析當(dāng)前中國對于死刑公眾聽證制的實(shí)行，并通過一些建議實(shí)現(xiàn)對聽證制的推進(jìn)。 關(guān)鍵詞：死刑案，公眾聽證制，國際標(biāo)準(zhǔn)，中國的實(shí)踐 死刑案聽證制必須嚴(yán)格遵守犯罪公正性的國際標(biāo)準(zhǔn)，尤其是與美國相關(guān)的公眾聽證制。 至于宣判，除非法律明文規(guī)定，任何刑事案件的宣判都應(yīng)當(dāng)公開進(jìn)行。除了個案以外，國家或地區(qū)死刑案件的總數(shù)、減刑情況和執(zhí)行情況都應(yīng)當(dāng)揭露給公眾，以便于公眾能了解政府死刑政策和處理案件的原由。如果死刑的數(shù)據(jù)沒有想公眾公開，那么怎么能夠讓死刑執(zhí)行的 必要建立在人民意愿只上呢？只有公開死刑數(shù)據(jù)，公眾才能獲得理解死刑的權(quán)利；人們才能在知曉真相后完善他們的看法，從而政府才能知曉人民的意愿。 死刑的執(zhí)行也應(yīng)當(dāng)公開，以確保公眾的知悉權(quán)。在中國參加庭審是有限制的。由于能夠參加和報道公眾聽 證，人們就知道庭審是否是公正的。 ，公開死刑案二審的聽證 中國法庭二審與外國的二審有基本區(qū)別。 根據(jù)中國現(xiàn)行刑事訴訟法，死刑復(fù)核程序在第三編，審判里。如果國內(nèi)立法和有關(guān)聽證的司法判例與國際人權(quán)法律、刑事公正不符，或者與死刑公眾聽證制不一致，相關(guān)國家應(yīng)當(dāng)采取措施來改善國內(nèi)立法和判例。 all the trial activities, especially the process of examining witnesses and examining evidence shall be made public and allow access for people to attend. As for judgment, unless otherwise specified by law, judgment of any criminal cases shall be made public. It is the right of the accused to receive document of judgment, the accused can not waive or reject the state judicial organ’s pronouncement of the result of the case to the public. If the accused does not agree with the judgment, he can appeal or plain, but he can not stop the state judicial organ from making the judgment public. Public judgments not only safeguard the right of the accused to the judgment, but also reflect the fairness of the state judicature and fulfill the society’s right to know about the situation of the case. For this reason, the state’s responsibility of making judgments public can not be released because the accused gives up the right. The Special Nature of Public Hearing of Death Penalty Cases Death penalty cases are different from ordinary criminal cases, because the life of the accused is involved. In some western countries, the accused of ordinary criminal cases can waive the right to trial. While in death penalty cases, even if the accused expresses his will to plea guilty, the public trial can not be exempted. 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。 Transparency of the Review of Death Penalty Cases Starting from January 1, 2020, the review and approval power of death penalty has been taken back by the Supreme Court of China. This puts an end to the history of 26 years of partial delegation of the power of death penalty review. The Supreme Court’s centralized exercise of the review and approval of death penalty is of significance in guaranteeing the quality of death cases handling, safeguarding human rights, deploying the policy of less and more cautious death sentencing and unifying the applicable standards for the death penalty. After taking back the review and approval power of the death penalty