检察介入公安侦查的中国模式探讨

Abstract

Under the traditional pattern of police-procuratorate relationship in China, the allocation of investigation power in general criminal cases follows the “police-led investigation model”. This model means that the public security organs independently investigate the vast majority of cases, and the procuratorial organs do not enjoy the right to investigate ordinary criminal cases and cannot directly participate in the investigation activities of the public security organs. Under such circumstances, there is a relatively serious disconnect between procuratorial work and investigation work, and these problems are concentrated in the following ways: First, the procuratorial organs lack “vitality” in supervising the investigation power, and the effectiveness of supervision is not good. On the one hand, the method of “division of labor and responsibility, relay case handling” makes the public security organs “one big” and rarely restricted in the investigation stage, and the only way for the procuratorial organs to contact the case at this time is to approve arrest and review, but this form of examination is mainly a kind of “material review”, which has the defect of “lagging behind and writing”; on the other hand, China’s previous investigation and supervision model lacks practical results, and a big reason is because of the lack of rigidity of supervision methods. Investigation supervision has also been regarded as soft supervision for a long time, and this concept and practice has greatly restricted the effectiveness of investigation supervision. Second, the relationship between investigation and prosecution is estranged, and it is difficult to achieve joint investigation and prosecution. In the case of an investigation- prosecution relationship that is too distant, the quality of the case evidence system mainly depends on the conduct and ability of the investigating organs themselves, and the way in which the procuratorial power restricts the investigation power is only manifested as not approving arrest or not prosecuting cases with insufficient evidence and unclear facts, but this is only a practice of “treating the symptoms rather than the root causes”, and it has the characteristics of lagging behind. In view of this, the reform and exploration of procuratorial intervention in public security investigations is timely, aiming to solve the above difficult problems from the way of improving the traditional police-procuratorate relationship. It is a powerful breakthrough in the traditional model of “division of labor and responsibility, relay case handling”, which begins to pay attention to the leading and supervisory role of procuratorial organs in the entire pre-trial criminal procedure, and conforms to the new requirements of the trial-centered reform of the litigation system and the reform of pre-trial procedures. This reform has achieved good results, but it also faces a series of problems that urgently need to be solved or improved. In this regard, efforts need to be made from the following aspects: First, it is necessary to clearly stipulate the power of procuratorial organs to intervene in public security investigations, and it is suggested that the 2011 draft law be used as a guide to make provisions: “Procuratorial organs have the right to intervene in public security investigation activities, guide investigation and evidence collection, and supervise the legality of investigation behavior.” Second, reasonably define the scope of procuratorial intervention in public security investigations, and for guiding investigation and evidence collection, it is advisable to use “special intervention”, and for investigation supervision, the principle of unifying universal supervision and key supervision should be observed; third, the procurator’s office or procuratorial liaison office platform in the station should be fully utilized to focus and give priority to the advantages of guiding investigation; fourth, establish and improve information sharing mechanisms to ensure information linkage; fifth, enrich and improve supervision means to expand the intensity of supervision, Clarify the legal effect to ensure the implementation of illegal supervision decisions.