羁押审查模式的比较研究

发布时间：2018-09-18 14:57

【摘要】：在刑事诉讼侦查程序中,剥夺或限制犯罪嫌疑人的人身自由是对其基本人权最为严厉的干预措施之一。如何使羁押性强制措施作为一种“必要的恶”在打击犯罪与保障人权之间求得平衡,世界各国甚至国际人权法都进行严格的规定和限制。而在这诸多措施中,羁押审查程序居于核心地位：一方面,控诉方要想羁押犯罪嫌疑人,就必须经由羁押审查程序方可实现,即无羁押审查程序则无羁押；另一方面,犯罪嫌疑人也可经羁押审查程序获得程序保障和程序效力,即有羁押则必经羁押审查程序。从国内研究情况来看,学界要求完善我国羁押审查程序的呼声很高涨,已有的研究成果大多是从刑事强制措施入手,对羁押进行研究,羁押审查往往只作为其中一部分内容,羁押审查模式尚未进行专门系统的研究。此外,我国羁押司法实践中违法羁押、滥用羁押等问题突出,虽然2012年新近通过的中国刑事诉讼法对羁押进行了一定的修改完善,但还是没有触及到羁押制度的一些根本性缺陷。因此,继续深化研究羁押审查,不仅具有重要的理论和现实意义,也对我国刑事诉讼与国际接轨、以更自信的姿态走向世界具有重要的政治意义。根据羁押与羁押审查的先后顺序、羁押审查的构造性特征和羁押审查的审查方式等根本性不同,可以将羁押审查分为事前审批模式和事后审查模式。事前审批模式以中国为代表,采用行政性的审查批捕程序,通过一系列行政性的审批手段决定,犯罪嫌疑人、被告人等待羁押审查的时问相对较长,也缺乏充分的程序保障,羁押审查的裁判者也不是法官而是检察官。事后审查模式以域外主要国家和国际公约为代表,采用司法性的审查程序,被追诉者一经逮捕,便会在很短的时间内被提交给中立的司法官员进行羁押审查。考察事后审查模式下的各主要代表国家,归纳发现域外的羁押审查几乎普遍遵循两个原则：迅速审查原则和司法裁判原则。通过比较研究发现,在审查时间上,事后审查模式下多采取1-2天的很短时限,个别先进国家甚至细化到若干小时；而事前审批模式下犯罪嫌疑人等待批捕的时间较长,与事后审查模式存在很大差距。在审查主体上,事后审查模式采用法官审查,保障了程序公正；而事前审批模式采用检察官批准的方式,“派员介入侦查、参与案件讨论”导致了中立性的丧失,“建议逮捕”违背了不告不理之司法原理,“审查侦查活动合法性”冲淡了羁押审查的主题,“自侦案件”存在构造性盲区。在审查方式上,事后审查模式一般采用对席式进行,保障了案件真实之发现和当事人的程序权利；而事前审批模式采用书面审理和辅助以“讯问”方式,由侦查人员讯问导致了“批准的人不检查,检查的人不中立,检查人是申请人”的矛盾,讯问内容也多是实体性的而非羁押审查所需的程序性讯问,并且讯问也不是强制性的。在逮捕与羁押的关系上,事后审查模式多采用逮捕与羁押相分离的做法,有利于对羁押进行单独审查；而事前审批模式下逮捕与羁押合二为一,逮捕当然的等同羁押,导致羁押审查程序的冗杂。在程序的属性上,事后审查模式采用司法性的程序,当事人享有充分而有效的救济权利；而事前审批模式采用行政审批,当事人没有有效的救济。在审查的效果上,事后审查模式相较事前审批模式更有效果。由此比较可发现,事后审查模式比事前审批模式更为科学,事前审批模式存在众多缺陷。究其深层原因,在于事前审批模式的诉讼模式采用犯罪控制模式,而事后审查模式的诉讼模式采用正当程序模式；在诉讼构造上,事前审批模式采用“流水作业式”,缺乏对审前侦查程序的司法审查,诉讼构造一方的当事人也多为追诉客体,缺乏有效的诉讼对抗和救济；在基本原则上,事前审批模式还没有对羁押审查程序进行专门而有效的规定。因此,对我国事前审批模式进行完善,实行逮捕与羁押相分离的做法,重新整合现行的强制措施,按照迅速审查和司法裁判的要求,在整体上构建后置式的羁押审查程序。
[Abstract]:In the criminal procedure, depriving or restricting the personal freedom of criminal suspects is one of the most severe interventions to their basic human rights. How to make detention coercive measures as a "necessary evil" to strike a balance between combating crime and protecting human rights, all countries in the world and even international human rights law have strict provisions. Among these measures, the detention review procedure occupies the core position: on the one hand, if the prosecution wants to detain the criminal suspect, it must be realized through the detention review procedure, that is, no detention review procedure; on the other hand, the criminal suspect can obtain procedural guarantee and procedural effect through the detention review procedure, that is, the detention review procedure. From the domestic research situation, there is a high demand for perfecting the detention review procedure in our country. Most of the existing research results are based on criminal compulsory measures to study detention. The detention review is often only a part of it, and the detention review mode has not yet been carried out in a special system. In addition, problems such as illegal detention and abuse of detention are prominent in China's judicial practice of detention. Although China's Criminal Procedure Law recently passed in 2012 has made some modifications and improvements to detention, it has not touched on some fundamental defects of the detention system. Therefore, it is not only important to continue to deepen the study of detention review. On the basis of the order of detention and detention review, the structural characteristics of detention review and the mode of detention review are fundamentally different, and detention review can be divided into pre-trial Approval Mode and post-trial. The mode of pre-trial and approval, represented by China, adopts the administrative procedure of examination and arrest, and decides through a series of administrative means of examination and approval. The suspects and defendants have a relatively long time to wait for custody review, and lack sufficient procedural protection. The referee of custody review is not a judge but a prosecutor. Represented by the main foreign countries and international conventions, the prosecuted will be submitted to a neutral judicial officer for custody review in a very short time after arrest by judicial review procedure. Through the comparative study, it is found that in the examination time, the ex post examination mode usually takes a very short time of 1-2 days, and some advanced countries even refine to several hours; while in the pre-examination and approval mode, the suspects wait for a long time for arrest, which is quite different from the ex post examination mode. As for the subject of investigation, the mode of ex post facto examination adopts the judge's examination, which guarantees the procedural justice; while the mode of ex ante examination and approval adopts the way approved by the prosecutor, "sending officers to participate in investigation and case discussion" leads to the loss of neutrality, "suggesting arrest" violates the judicial principle of ignoring the accusation, and "examining the legality of investigation activities" dilutes the detention. There is a structural blind spot in the subject of detention review. In the way of examination, the mode of post-mortem review is usually carried out by the way of opposite seats, which guarantees the true discovery of the case and the procedural rights of the parties concerned. In the mode of pre-mortem examination and approval, the mode of written trial and auxiliary interrogation are adopted, and the investigators interrogate the approved persons. Without inspection, the inspector is not neutral, the inspector is the applicant. "The content of interrogation is more substantive than the procedural interrogation required by custody review, and interrogation is not mandatory. In the relationship between arrest and custody, the mode of post-mortem review mostly adopts the separation of arrest and custody, which is conducive to the detention alone. In terms of the nature of the procedure, the ex post review mode adopts judicial procedure, and the parties enjoy full and effective relief rights; while the ex ante examination and approval mode adopts administrative examination and approval, and the parties are not effective. In terms of the effect of the review, the mode of ex post examination is more effective than the mode of ex ante examination and approval. From this comparison, we can find that the mode of ex post examination is more scientific than the mode of ex ante examination and approval, and there are many defects in the mode of ex ante examination and approval. In the litigation structure, the pre-trial approval mode adopts the "flowing mode", lacks the judicial review of the pre-trial investigation procedure, and the litigants on one side of the litigation structure are mostly the object of prosecution, lacking effective litigation confrontation and relief; in the basic principle, the pre-trial approval mode has not yet taken custody. Therefore, we should perfect the pattern of pre-trial and approval, separate arrest from detention, re-integrate the existing compulsory measures, and construct the post-trial procedure of detention as a whole in accordance with the requirements of prompt review and judicial adjudication.
【学位授予单位】：南京大学
【学位级别】：硕士
【学位授予年份】：2014
【分类号】：D925.2

【相似文献】