【正文】 , the Supreme Court promulgated some documents standardizing the review process of the death penalty. These documents included Provisions of the Supreme Court on Several Issues Concerning the Review of Death Penalty Cases, which establishes the procedures of interrogating the accused, investigating and verifying evidence and adopting the opinions of the defense lawyer, and improves the review process of death penalty. Remarkable achievements have been made in the review work of the 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. 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. 公正公開的的審判不僅有益于整個刑事訴訟程序，中國法律體制建設(shè)，也有益于維護中國憲法的人權(quán)、國際人權(quán)要求及刑事司法標準。因此，在最高院收回死刑復(fù)核權(quán)后，應(yīng)當根據(jù)法律進一步完善死刑復(fù)核程序公眾聽證制問題的研究。而中國的二審更廣泛地回顧案件事實和法律，并沒有局限于上訴或抗訴所提出的問題。 傳統(tǒng)上而言，宣判會以在法院門口或公共場所貼公告，或?qū)⒉糠謨?nèi)容發(fā)表在新聞中，或者將所有案子做成冊子發(fā)表年鑒。 ，公開法庭記錄和其他文件 畢竟，只 有少數(shù)人能夠參加庭審，由于有些人還不能夠準時到達法庭等原因，參加旁聽的人甚至什么都聽不到或者理解不了。 公眾聽證制 是中國刑事司法體系的基本原則。如果民意對于一個國家來說是很重要的考慮因素，那么政府就應(yīng)當為形成民意而提供了解信息的渠道。例如， 在日本，公眾并不知曉個案死刑執(zhí)行的信息，但是合計數(shù)據(jù)還是公開的。如果被告人對宣判結(jié)果不服，他可以上訴，但是卻無權(quán)阻止司法機關(guān)公布宣判。作者想分享一些與聯(lián)合國相關(guān)文件死刑案公開審判和宣判的理解。給這些案子舉行公眾聽證制似乎是保證司法公正性的最佳方式。公開審判的核心是對審判活動的處理，由當場公開起訴、辯護陳述、詢問證人、核查證據(jù)和法庭最后陳詞組成。 ，死刑公眾聽證制的特 殊含義 由于牽涉到被告人的生命，死刑案件與普通的刑事案件不同。 一些國家理性地認為應(yīng)當保留死刑，因為死刑符合國家當前情形，包括人民意愿。一個已經(jīng)被宣判死刑的人在執(zhí) 行死刑前仍然享有其正當權(quán)利和其他權(quán)益的保障?！? 死刑公眾聽證制的準備 中華人民共和國刑事訴訟法第 151 條規(guī)定： 人民法院決定開庭審判后，應(yīng)當進行下列工作： （一）確定合議庭的組成人員； （二）將人民檢察院的起訴書副本至遲在開庭十日以前送達被告人。只有那些對案子有監(jiān)督責任的人、機構(gòu)、辯護律師，與案子相關(guān)的人員，對案子有興趣的新聞機構(gòu)和研究這些案子的學(xué)者才想要特定案子的完整庭審記錄。由于通過這種公告方式，能看到的人數(shù)是有限的，因此公開宣告的作用也是有限的。最高院集合死刑復(fù)核權(quán)在確保死刑案件處理、維護人權(quán)、展開謹慎處理死刑案的政策、形成死刑的統(tǒng)一標準有著及其重大的意義。根據(jù)既定程序的標準，改變中國死刑復(fù)核程序的行政本質(zhì)將完善死刑案的每一步驟。 and second, sufficient convenience shall be provided for the public to attend the hearing。 allow the public to know the execution of specific cases and the overall situation of the state’s death penalty policy。 (3) to notify the procuratorate of the time and place of the court session three days before the opening of the session。 Attend the Hearing of Death Penalty Cases The most prominent manifestation of public hearings is to allow the public to visit the court of hearing. There are some constraints in attending court trials in China. For example, the capacity of the court room is generally limited and it may be not large enough for the people to sit in on hearings of death penalty cases. As a result, some can not attend court hearings, which affects the effect of public hearings. Traditionally the judgment is publicized through posting a bulletin at the door of the court or public places, or publishing part of the content in the press, or publishing the collection of cases on the yearly basis. All three ways are used in China. However, there are limitations imposed by these types of posting in the time and place when publishing the judgment of death penalty. By posting bulletins, as only limited number of people can access the bulletins, hence the influence of publishing the judgment is limited. Reporting on death penalty cases in the press is not a formal way of publicity, which normally selectively publishes some cases from the angle of news reporting and does not include the plete judgment。1