正当程序、经济推理与“警察圈套”

发布时间：2018-05-13 18:28

本文选题：非法证据 + 经济推理　；参考：《环球法律评论》2013年02期

【摘要】：在"警察圈套"的司法审查标准问题上,美国联邦法院判例及学术界有"主观审查标准"与"客观审查标准"之争。从保护被引诱人人权角度看,两种审查标准均有可能造成人权保护中的法律漏洞,运用经济分析方法审查可以对之进行相应的弥补。根据科斯的经济理论,通过立法确定被引诱人的基本人权,降低交易成本,以使"第二方监督"产生实效,能够更有效地防范侦查机关滥用诱惑侦查权,也更实际可行。对被引诱人的初始权利的立法界定以及降低其维权成本,可以看作是吓阻警方违法侦查以解决警察圈套问题的关键。如果被引诱人系事前无犯罪倾向者,根据正当程序原则,国家机关可能因此丧失公诉权。即使被引诱人具有事前犯罪倾向,也应当允许法院对警方恶劣的引诱行为进行司法审查,在量刑幅度上保护被引诱人。非法证据排除规则难以吓阻警察的诱捕侦查行为,通过减轻被引诱人的证明责任以及限制犯罪前科证据的使用,能够更有效地保护被引诱人的正当权益。
[Abstract]:On the issue of judicial review standard of "police trap", there is a dispute between "subjective review standard" and "objective review standard" in American federal court jurisprudence and academic circles. From the point of view of protecting the human rights of the enticed person, both kinds of censorship standards may cause the legal loopholes in the protection of human rights, which can be remedied by the economic analysis method. According to Coase's economic theory, the basic human rights are determined by legislation, and the transaction cost is reduced, so that the "second party supervision" can produce actual effect, which can prevent the investigation organ from abusing the temptation investigation power more effectively, and it is also more practical and feasible. The legislative definition of the induced initial right and the reduction of its cost can be regarded as the key to deterring the police from investigating illegally in order to solve the problem of police trap. If the inducer has no prior criminal tendency, according to the principle of due process, the state may lose the right of public prosecution. Even if the induced person has the tendency to commit a crime in advance, the court should be allowed to conduct a judicial review of the police's abominable inducement, and to protect the induced person in the range of sentencing. The exclusionary rule of illegal evidence can hardly deter the police's entrapment and investigation behavior. By reducing the induced burden of proof and restricting the use of criminal record evidence, it can more effectively protect the enticing legitimate rights and interests.
【作者单位】：苏州大学法学院;
【基金】：2012国家社科基金项目“刑事程序法的功能研究”之研究成果,项目批准号:12CFX044 2011教育部人文社科项目,项目批准号:11YJC820070
【分类号】：D915.3

【参考文献】