侦查程序的诉讼化改造
|
摘要
我国刑事诉讼作为一种重要的社会控制手段,在维系社会的良性运转过程中发挥了至关重要的作用。一般而言,刑事诉讼的目的在于惩罚犯罪、保障人权。就整个诉讼结果而言,此目的可能已达到;而就整个诉讼程序而言,在现实条件下,保障人权之目的似乎不太令人乐观,这尤其表现在刑事诉讼的侦查阶段。
侦查程序是侦查机关在刑事案件立案后至起诉前,按照一定的程序、步骤和顺序,履行法定的手续为收集犯罪证据,查明案件事实,确定是否起诉的准备程序,是刑事诉讼的一个十分重要的阶段。从现有立法和司法实践看,我国侦查程序实质上是追诉机关单方追诉犯罪的调查程序,其呈现出强职权主义特征:一方面缺少中立裁判方的裁判;另一方面缺少辩护方的防御权利,这就决定了这一程序的诉讼构造并没有形成控、辩、裁三方构成的诉讼形态,正是由于缺少中立方的裁判,很难说依靠侦查机关自身的力量能够做出公正的程序裁判;也很难说侦查机关不会滥用国家赋予其行使的权力。另外,由于犯罪嫌疑人、被告人在此程序中享有的权利是十分有限的,因此其难以防御侦查机关所拥有的强大权力,更不用说与其展开平等的对抗。更为重要的是,由于中立的裁判机构没有主动介入,也由于犯罪嫌疑人、被告人没有被赋予进行司法救济的权利,致使司法实践中出现了严重的违反法律程序的事实。因此,有必要在法治视野下以诉讼化为指导,对我国的侦查程序予以改造。
“整个刑事诉讼程序犹如一座大厦,而侦查阶段则如同这座大厦的根基。如果地基的构造不合理、不坚固,那么,整个大厦就有可能发生倾覆。同样,如果侦查程序的构造不合理、不坚固,那么,整个刑事诉讼程序就有可能发生偏差,甚至导致出入人罪。”侦查程序作为刑事诉讼的重要组成部分,理应具有“诉讼”的特性。通过分析我国侦查程序的特点,反思其存在的构造性缺陷,并提出运用“三方组合”诉讼理论重新构建我国侦查程序,使其成为具备追诉、辩护、裁判三方主体共同参与,控辩双方平等对抗、裁判主体居中介入的“三角形”诉讼构造。侦查程序诉讼化的思路为:适当限制侦查机关的侦查行为,使其不能随意侵害公民基本权利;赋予犯罪嫌疑人及其律师一定的侦查权和较为全面的针对侦查行为的防御权;赋予法官以司法审查权,以防止侦查机关的非法侦查行为,并在非法侦查行为发生时给予否定的评价。以诉讼化为目标来完善我国侦查程序构造,将其由目前以“司法程序”之名行“行政治罪”之实的超职权主义的行政追查程序,改造为三方组合的“诉讼裁决程序”,从而建立更科学、更合理的侦查程序。
Our country criminal prosecution took one kind of important society controls the method, in maintained social in the benignity generating process to play the very important role. Generally speaking, the criminal prosecution goal lies in the penalty crime, the safeguard human rights. Speaking of the entire lawsuit result, this goal is possible to achieve; But speaking of the entire legal procedure, under the actual condition, goal of the safeguard human rights not too is as if optimistic, this especially displays at the criminal prosecution detection stage.
The detection procedure is investigates the institution to put on record after the criminal case to the prosecution before, according to the certain procedure, the step and the order, fulfills the legal procedure for the collection crime evidence, verifies the case fact, determined whether sues the preparation procedure, is a criminal prosecution extremely important stage. Looked from the existing legislation and the judicial practice that, our country investigates in the procedure essence is investigates the institution folk remedy to investigate the crime the investigation procedure, it presents the strong authority principle characteristic: On the one hand lacks the neutral referee side referee; On the other hand lacks the defense side the defense right, this had decided this procedure lawsuit structure has not certainly formed controls, debates, cuts the tripartite constitution the lawsuit shape, is precisely because lacks the cubic referee, is very difficult to say the dependence detection institution own strength can make the fair procedure referee; Also is very difficult to say the detection institution cannot abuse the authority which the country entrusts with it to exercise. On the other hand, because the crime suspect, the accused person enjoys in this procedure the right is extremely limited, therefore it defends the formidable authority with difficulty which the detection institution has, if launches the equal the resistance. More importantly, because neutral referee organization not initiative involvement, also because the crime suspect, the accused person have not entrusted with carries on the judicial relief the right, caused in the judicial practice to appear seriously has violated the legal proceeding the fact. Therefore, it is necessary to the lawsuit to change into the instruction under the government by law field of vision, transforms to our country detection procedure.
"The entire criminal prosecution procedure just like a building, but investigates the stage to be similar to this building the foundation. If the ground structure is unreasonable, is not firm, then, the entire building has the possibility to occur overturns. Similarly, if the detection procedure structure is unreasonable, is not firm, then, the entire criminal prosecution procedure has the possibility to have the deviation, even causes the difference person crime." The detection procedure took the criminal prosecution the important constituent, should have "the lawsuit" characteristic. Through analyzes our country to investigate the procedure the characteristic, reconsiders its existence structure flaw, and proposed the utilization "the tripartite combination" the lawsuit theory reconstructs our country to investigate the procedure, causes it to have investigates, the defense, the referee tripartite main body participation together, controls debates the bilateral equality resistance, the referee main body comes between the involvement "the triangle" the lawsuit structure. The detection procedure lawsuit mentality is: The suitable limit detection institution's detection behavior, enables it to violate the citizen basic right at will; Entrusts with the crime suspect and its attorney the certain detection power and is comprehensive in view of the detection behavior defense power; Entrusts with judge by the judicial examination power, prevented the detection institution the illegal detection behavior, and occurs when the illegal detection behavior gives the denial the appraisal. To the lawsuit changes into the goal to consummate our country to investigate the procedure structure, the name line "the administration punish" it by at present by "the judicial process" the reality ultra authority principle administration to trace the procedure, transforms for the tripartite combination "the lawsuit ruling procedure", thus scientifically, the more reasonable establishes detection procedure.
侦查程序是侦查机关在刑事案件立案后至起诉前,按照一定的程序、步骤和顺序,履行法定的手续为收集犯罪证据,查明案件事实,确定是否起诉的准备程序,是刑事诉讼的一个十分重要的阶段。从现有立法和司法实践看,我国侦查程序实质上是追诉机关单方追诉犯罪的调查程序,其呈现出强职权主义特征:一方面缺少中立裁判方的裁判;另一方面缺少辩护方的防御权利,这就决定了这一程序的诉讼构造并没有形成控、辩、裁三方构成的诉讼形态,正是由于缺少中立方的裁判,很难说依靠侦查机关自身的力量能够做出公正的程序裁判;也很难说侦查机关不会滥用国家赋予其行使的权力。另外,由于犯罪嫌疑人、被告人在此程序中享有的权利是十分有限的,因此其难以防御侦查机关所拥有的强大权力,更不用说与其展开平等的对抗。更为重要的是,由于中立的裁判机构没有主动介入,也由于犯罪嫌疑人、被告人没有被赋予进行司法救济的权利,致使司法实践中出现了严重的违反法律程序的事实。因此,有必要在法治视野下以诉讼化为指导,对我国的侦查程序予以改造。
“整个刑事诉讼程序犹如一座大厦,而侦查阶段则如同这座大厦的根基。如果地基的构造不合理、不坚固,那么,整个大厦就有可能发生倾覆。同样,如果侦查程序的构造不合理、不坚固,那么,整个刑事诉讼程序就有可能发生偏差,甚至导致出入人罪。”侦查程序作为刑事诉讼的重要组成部分,理应具有“诉讼”的特性。通过分析我国侦查程序的特点,反思其存在的构造性缺陷,并提出运用“三方组合”诉讼理论重新构建我国侦查程序,使其成为具备追诉、辩护、裁判三方主体共同参与,控辩双方平等对抗、裁判主体居中介入的“三角形”诉讼构造。侦查程序诉讼化的思路为:适当限制侦查机关的侦查行为,使其不能随意侵害公民基本权利;赋予犯罪嫌疑人及其律师一定的侦查权和较为全面的针对侦查行为的防御权;赋予法官以司法审查权,以防止侦查机关的非法侦查行为,并在非法侦查行为发生时给予否定的评价。以诉讼化为目标来完善我国侦查程序构造,将其由目前以“司法程序”之名行“行政治罪”之实的超职权主义的行政追查程序,改造为三方组合的“诉讼裁决程序”,从而建立更科学、更合理的侦查程序。
Our country criminal prosecution took one kind of important society controls the method, in maintained social in the benignity generating process to play the very important role. Generally speaking, the criminal prosecution goal lies in the penalty crime, the safeguard human rights. Speaking of the entire lawsuit result, this goal is possible to achieve; But speaking of the entire legal procedure, under the actual condition, goal of the safeguard human rights not too is as if optimistic, this especially displays at the criminal prosecution detection stage.
The detection procedure is investigates the institution to put on record after the criminal case to the prosecution before, according to the certain procedure, the step and the order, fulfills the legal procedure for the collection crime evidence, verifies the case fact, determined whether sues the preparation procedure, is a criminal prosecution extremely important stage. Looked from the existing legislation and the judicial practice that, our country investigates in the procedure essence is investigates the institution folk remedy to investigate the crime the investigation procedure, it presents the strong authority principle characteristic: On the one hand lacks the neutral referee side referee; On the other hand lacks the defense side the defense right, this had decided this procedure lawsuit structure has not certainly formed controls, debates, cuts the tripartite constitution the lawsuit shape, is precisely because lacks the cubic referee, is very difficult to say the dependence detection institution own strength can make the fair procedure referee; Also is very difficult to say the detection institution cannot abuse the authority which the country entrusts with it to exercise. On the other hand, because the crime suspect, the accused person enjoys in this procedure the right is extremely limited, therefore it defends the formidable authority with difficulty which the detection institution has, if launches the equal the resistance. More importantly, because neutral referee organization not initiative involvement, also because the crime suspect, the accused person have not entrusted with carries on the judicial relief the right, caused in the judicial practice to appear seriously has violated the legal proceeding the fact. Therefore, it is necessary to the lawsuit to change into the instruction under the government by law field of vision, transforms to our country detection procedure.
"The entire criminal prosecution procedure just like a building, but investigates the stage to be similar to this building the foundation. If the ground structure is unreasonable, is not firm, then, the entire building has the possibility to occur overturns. Similarly, if the detection procedure structure is unreasonable, is not firm, then, the entire criminal prosecution procedure has the possibility to have the deviation, even causes the difference person crime." The detection procedure took the criminal prosecution the important constituent, should have "the lawsuit" characteristic. Through analyzes our country to investigate the procedure the characteristic, reconsiders its existence structure flaw, and proposed the utilization "the tripartite combination" the lawsuit theory reconstructs our country to investigate the procedure, causes it to have investigates, the defense, the referee tripartite main body participation together, controls debates the bilateral equality resistance, the referee main body comes between the involvement "the triangle" the lawsuit structure. The detection procedure lawsuit mentality is: The suitable limit detection institution's detection behavior, enables it to violate the citizen basic right at will; Entrusts with the crime suspect and its attorney the certain detection power and is comprehensive in view of the detection behavior defense power; Entrusts with judge by the judicial examination power, prevented the detection institution the illegal detection behavior, and occurs when the illegal detection behavior gives the denial the appraisal. To the lawsuit changes into the goal to consummate our country to investigate the procedure structure, the name line "the administration punish" it by at present by "the judicial process" the reality ultra authority principle administration to trace the procedure, transforms for the tripartite combination "the lawsuit ruling procedure", thus scientifically, the more reasonable establishes detection procedure.
引文
①孙长永.侦查程序与人权[M].北京,中国方正出版社, 2000年,第6页。
①徐静村.刑事诉讼法学(修订本)[M].北京,法律出版社, 1997年,第l—2页。
①[英]亨利·梅因.古代法[M].沈景一译.北京,商务印书馆, 1996年,第97页。
②[美]E·博登海默.法理学:法律哲学与法律方法[M].邓正来译.北京,中国政法大学出版社, 1999年,第16—17页。
①[美]J·罗尔斯.正义论[M].北京,中国社会科学出版社, 1988年,第68—69页。
②陈瑞华.通过法律实现程序正义——萨默斯“程序价值”理论评析[A].北大法律评论[C].第1卷第187页。
①[德]卡尔·J·弗里德里西.超验正义——宪政的宗教之维[M].周勇,王丽芝译.上海,三联书店,1997年,第2 页。
①陈瑞华.刑事诉讼法学的前沿问题[M].北京,中国人民大学出版社, 1999年,第80页。
①郑铭勋.侦查构造基本问题探究[J].广西政法管理干部学院学报,2003年第5期,第22页。
①左卫民.价值与结构——刑事程序的双重分析[M].成都,四川大学出版社, 1994年,第39页。
①龙宗智.相对合理主义[M].北京,中国政法大学出版社, 1999年,第96页。
②[美]皮尤.美国与法国刑事司法制度之比较[A].法学译丛[C]. 1986年第4期,第53页。
①王超.论我国刑事诉讼审前程序的重构[A].检察论丛(五)[C].北京,法律出版社, 2002年,第102页。
②[罗]盖尤斯.法学阶梯(中译本)[M].黄风译.北京,中国政法大学出版社, 1992年,第248页。
①汪建成.刑事诉讼文化研讨[J].政法论坛, 1999年第6期,第27页。
①夏锦文,蔡道通.论中国法治化的观念基础[J].中国法学, 1997年第5期,第56页。
②[美]H·伯尔曼.法律与宗教[M].梁治平译.上海,三联书店, 1991年,第43页。
[1]陈瑞华.刑事诉讼的前沿问题[M].北京,中国人民大学出版社,2000年。
[2]樊崇义.诉讼原理[M].北京,法律出版社,2003年。
[3]宋英辉.刑事审判前程序研究[M].北京,中国政法大学出版社,2002年。
[4]孙长永.侦查程序与人权[M].北京,中国方正出版社,2000年。
[5]宋英辉.刑事诉讼原理[M].北京,法律出版社,2003年。
[6]李心鉴.刑事诉讼构造论[M].北京,中国政法大学出版社,1997年。
[7]陈永生.侦查程序原理[M].北京,中国人民公安大学出版社,2003年。
[8]宋英辉.刑事诉讼目的[M].北京,中国人民公安大学出版社,1995年。
[9]何家弘.外国犯罪侦查制度[M].北京,中国人民大学出版社,1995年。
[10]樊崇义.刑事诉讼法[M].北京,中国政法大学出版社,1996年。
[11]陈光中.外国刑事诉讼程序比较研究[M].北京,中国政法大学出版社,1998年。
[1]陈岚.侦查程序结构论[J].法学评论,1999年第6期。
[2]付建平.论侦查的诉讼化[J].青岛海洋大学学报, 2001年第1期。
[3]聂世基、卢爱军.论侦查程序公正[J].公安研究,2000年第1期。
[4]陈杰.刑事侦查的诉讼化设想[J].西安政治学院学报,2005年第2期。
[5]宗森.侦查程序若干问题探讨[J].巢湖学院学报,2002年第2期。
[6]王敏.侦查程序诉讼化构造探析[J].黑龙江社会科学学报,2003年第6期。
[7]万毅.转折与定位:侦查模式与中国侦查程序改革[J].现代法学,2003年。
[8]张剑秋,韩阳.对侦查程序的重新定位与完善的设想[J].学术交流,2003年。
[9]张玉镶、郭华.侦查程序的性质研究[J].中国人民公安大学学报,2003年第2期。
[10]江伟.论刑事侦查程序的诉讼化改造途径——以刑事诉讼构造为视角[J].福建法学,2005年第2期。
[11]龚德云.刑事侦查模式及其诉讼理念分析[J].河北公安警察职业学院学报,2004年第1期。
[12]尹伟中.论侦查程序的基本价值目标[J].长沙电力学院学报(社会科学版),2002年第3期。
[13]李忆、陈龙环.论我国侦查程序的正当化[J].中国人民公安大学学报,2002年第4期。
[14]李心鉴.我国刑事诉讼法学的两大现代课题——诉讼目的与诉讼构造[J].中外法学,1991年。
[15]蔡杰、肖萍.我国侦查程序引入对抗制之必要性——对我国侦查模式的反思[J].中国人民公安大学学报,2004年第1期。
[1]Joel Samaha. Criminal Procedure,FourthEdition.Wadsworth Publishing Company,1999.
[2]D.J.Galligan. Due Process and Fair Procedures.London,Clarendon Press—oxford,1996.
①徐静村.刑事诉讼法学(修订本)[M].北京,法律出版社, 1997年,第l—2页。
①[英]亨利·梅因.古代法[M].沈景一译.北京,商务印书馆, 1996年,第97页。
②[美]E·博登海默.法理学:法律哲学与法律方法[M].邓正来译.北京,中国政法大学出版社, 1999年,第16—17页。
①[美]J·罗尔斯.正义论[M].北京,中国社会科学出版社, 1988年,第68—69页。
②陈瑞华.通过法律实现程序正义——萨默斯“程序价值”理论评析[A].北大法律评论[C].第1卷第187页。
①[德]卡尔·J·弗里德里西.超验正义——宪政的宗教之维[M].周勇,王丽芝译.上海,三联书店,1997年,第2 页。
①陈瑞华.刑事诉讼法学的前沿问题[M].北京,中国人民大学出版社, 1999年,第80页。
①郑铭勋.侦查构造基本问题探究[J].广西政法管理干部学院学报,2003年第5期,第22页。
①左卫民.价值与结构——刑事程序的双重分析[M].成都,四川大学出版社, 1994年,第39页。
①龙宗智.相对合理主义[M].北京,中国政法大学出版社, 1999年,第96页。
②[美]皮尤.美国与法国刑事司法制度之比较[A].法学译丛[C]. 1986年第4期,第53页。
①王超.论我国刑事诉讼审前程序的重构[A].检察论丛(五)[C].北京,法律出版社, 2002年,第102页。
②[罗]盖尤斯.法学阶梯(中译本)[M].黄风译.北京,中国政法大学出版社, 1992年,第248页。
①汪建成.刑事诉讼文化研讨[J].政法论坛, 1999年第6期,第27页。
①夏锦文,蔡道通.论中国法治化的观念基础[J].中国法学, 1997年第5期,第56页。
②[美]H·伯尔曼.法律与宗教[M].梁治平译.上海,三联书店, 1991年,第43页。
[1]陈瑞华.刑事诉讼的前沿问题[M].北京,中国人民大学出版社,2000年。
[2]樊崇义.诉讼原理[M].北京,法律出版社,2003年。
[3]宋英辉.刑事审判前程序研究[M].北京,中国政法大学出版社,2002年。
[4]孙长永.侦查程序与人权[M].北京,中国方正出版社,2000年。
[5]宋英辉.刑事诉讼原理[M].北京,法律出版社,2003年。
[6]李心鉴.刑事诉讼构造论[M].北京,中国政法大学出版社,1997年。
[7]陈永生.侦查程序原理[M].北京,中国人民公安大学出版社,2003年。
[8]宋英辉.刑事诉讼目的[M].北京,中国人民公安大学出版社,1995年。
[9]何家弘.外国犯罪侦查制度[M].北京,中国人民大学出版社,1995年。
[10]樊崇义.刑事诉讼法[M].北京,中国政法大学出版社,1996年。
[11]陈光中.外国刑事诉讼程序比较研究[M].北京,中国政法大学出版社,1998年。
[1]陈岚.侦查程序结构论[J].法学评论,1999年第6期。
[2]付建平.论侦查的诉讼化[J].青岛海洋大学学报, 2001年第1期。
[3]聂世基、卢爱军.论侦查程序公正[J].公安研究,2000年第1期。
[4]陈杰.刑事侦查的诉讼化设想[J].西安政治学院学报,2005年第2期。
[5]宗森.侦查程序若干问题探讨[J].巢湖学院学报,2002年第2期。
[6]王敏.侦查程序诉讼化构造探析[J].黑龙江社会科学学报,2003年第6期。
[7]万毅.转折与定位:侦查模式与中国侦查程序改革[J].现代法学,2003年。
[8]张剑秋,韩阳.对侦查程序的重新定位与完善的设想[J].学术交流,2003年。
[9]张玉镶、郭华.侦查程序的性质研究[J].中国人民公安大学学报,2003年第2期。
[10]江伟.论刑事侦查程序的诉讼化改造途径——以刑事诉讼构造为视角[J].福建法学,2005年第2期。
[11]龚德云.刑事侦查模式及其诉讼理念分析[J].河北公安警察职业学院学报,2004年第1期。
[12]尹伟中.论侦查程序的基本价值目标[J].长沙电力学院学报(社会科学版),2002年第3期。
[13]李忆、陈龙环.论我国侦查程序的正当化[J].中国人民公安大学学报,2002年第4期。
[14]李心鉴.我国刑事诉讼法学的两大现代课题——诉讼目的与诉讼构造[J].中外法学,1991年。
[15]蔡杰、肖萍.我国侦查程序引入对抗制之必要性——对我国侦查模式的反思[J].中国人民公安大学学报,2004年第1期。
[1]Joel Samaha. Criminal Procedure,FourthEdition.Wadsworth Publishing Company,1999.
[2]D.J.Galligan. Due Process and Fair Procedures.London,Clarendon Press—oxford,1996.