主诉检察官制度研究
摘要
主诉检察官制度作为公诉运行机制,是检察官执行公诉职能所采取的方式和公诉部门的办案制度,是在原有的以上命下从的行政性关系为主导的办案机制暴露出许多弊端并且产生出改革的紧迫性情况下出现的。该制度推出至今仍然存在理论上的困惑和操作上的难度,实施中的一些问题仍在探索。为了准确地理解、把握主诉检察官制度,为了进一步完善主诉检察官制度,本文试从主诉检察官制度的可行性论证、总体构架和该制度在实践中存在的问题、解决途径以及进一步深化进行了分析和探讨,希望能对我国主诉检察官制度理论研究和实践做出一点贡献。
As an acting public prosecution mechanism, chief prosecutor system is the method of prosecutor to function in public prosecution and the system of prosecution institution in handling cases. Chief prosecutor system is introduced nationwide by the Supreme People’s Procuratorate of China in the context of pressing reforming situation. Moreover, the traditional mechanism, featured by top-down administrative relations, has revealed a number of drawbacks and couldn’t keep in pace with the development of the situation. The system makes the prosecutor an enacting entity with decision power and relevant obligations while handling cases. Decentralization as the core, chief prosecutor system aims at strengthen chief prosecutor’s judicial role, while diminishing its administrative role, which can be an epoch-making fundamental reform. However, chief prosecutor system is still undergoing trial and error. Problems may arise in operation and need to be discussed and solved. This paper demonstrate in an overall sense the feasibility, general framework, problems and solutions in implementing the chief prosecutor system, in the hope of providing reference to further study.
There are 4 chapters in total:
The chapter 1 expounds on the feasibility to practice chief prosecutor system in China.
To exercise chief prosecutor system in China is beneficial to enhance the efficiency of prosecution institution; it is helpful to improve working quality; it can lift the professional level of prosecutors; it meets the compelling needs of prosecution practice. The theoretical grounds to carry out chief prosecutor system can be clarified by the basic principles guiding the general practices in countries all over the globe. The paper initially elaborates on the independence principle which is not only the basis of modern legality and prosecution system, but also universally acknowledged and made the elementary law by each nation. In this part, the author dwells on the comparative argument of the theory and practice of chief prosecutor system in western countries like the USA, France and Japan etc, to explain that prosecutor should be highly independent as an entity in performing public prosecution rights. Correspondingly, chief prosecutor system fully manifests the autonomy and independence of prosecutors. In term of litigious economics, the paper explains the public prosecution, as an activity of a nation to yield its judicial resources, should reduce the cost of judicial resources. The practice of chief prosecutor system, a reform to the prosecution operating mechanism, can simplify decision-making process, shorten case-handling circle, and improve litigious efficiency. The paper analyzes the operating law of public prosecution, to prove chief prosecutor system reflects the former law as well as stresses the dominant role of chief prosecutor. Therefore, the introduction of chief prosecutor system accords with the laws. At last, the paper argues that chief prosecutor system has a ready base in respect of relevant law systems and qualified staff; moreover, it can be linked seamlessly to the chief judge system in judicial process. China meets the essential requirements to practice chief prosecutor system.
Chapter 2, the core part of the paper, recounts the overall framework of chief prosecutor system.
First, it clarifies the scope of functions and powers of chief prosecutor system, which is the most vital and essential part of chief prosecutor system reform. Then how to identify the functions and powers? This paper provides several principles: a. legitimating principle. b. the principle for the procuratorial organs to perform their official functions in a unitary way. c. gradual decentralization principle. d. reasonability principle. Furthermore, in line with the regulations of the Supreme People’s Procuratorate, China, the prosecutor’s terms of reference should be defined through a clear-out: the right to claim, to suggest the practice of simplified procedure, to supplement survey, to extend case deadline, to delay trial or prosecution, etc.
Second, it explicates the operating pattern of chief prosecutor system to clear the obligation of prosecutors, assistants and recorders by explaining the “triad”in real situations.
Third, it gives an account of the appointment of prosecutor in western world to shed light on how to select and crown prosecutor by judging his ethnic merits, competence, etc. It also presents the probationary chief prosecutor system in consideration of enhancing prosecutor army with enabled reserves and put the staff in a benign circle.
Fourth, it narrates the relations between prosecutor and other entities. The author holds that chief procurator, the procurational committee and chief prosecutor should be coordinate as well as subordinate; department director can supervise chief prosecutor but can not instruct. Chief prosecutor and his assistant should be sponsor and coordinator, the director and directed.
Fifth, to assure the fair trial and jurisdiction, it is of necessity to facilitate sufficient guarantees. This chapter suggests in position, official title, material aspects.
Sixth, as for balance of power, the paper briefs the need to supervise chief prosecutor in regard to procedure, internal, external angle, as well as the punishment for negligence.
In chapter 3, the author analyzes the problems in exercising chief prosecutor system especially in primary level procuratorates and continues to suggest solutions from personal view.
Problems are: a. lag-behind of legislation. b. the contradiction between independent performance of right and local interference. c. wrongly positing, chief prosecutor is wrongly viewed as an executive officer rather that an inherently judicial one. d. the stereotype thought that only prosecutors can be the chief prosecutor. e. the serious imbalance between little power and much responsibility of the chief prosecutor. f. various working styles with little improvement in working quality. g. failure to transform thoughts in chief prosecutor, department director and responding chief procurator. h. the long-time breakdown of chief prosecutor conference. i. the unscientific appraisal of chief prosecutor’s work.
Solutions can be: a. to perfect legislation system, providing legislative grounds for carrying out chief prosecutor system in an all-round way. b. to weaken the executive role and emphasize vertical management. c. to standardize working style. The“triad”pattern with chief prosecutor as a leading role can be the goal. d. to streamline the prosecution formality. e. to stress the functioning of the chief prosecutor conference. f. to regulate the chief prosecutor assessment system.
Chapter 4 envisions the deeper exercise of chief prosecutor system in light of prosecution reform.
On one hand, to lift the staff’s comprehensive competence and ensure the stability and competitiveness, chief prosecutors should be professional and elite-oriented. The professional public prosecutor system should be set up.
On the other hand, to enlarge the power scope of chief prosecutors and entitle them the arrest-approval power, chief prosecutor should be able to involve in the pre-trial process, to direct and supervise investigation and evidence-collection of investigation organs with the purpose to serve the public prosecution.
As an acting public prosecution mechanism, chief prosecutor system is the method of prosecutor to function in public prosecution and the system of prosecution institution in handling cases. Chief prosecutor system is introduced nationwide by the Supreme People’s Procuratorate of China in the context of pressing reforming situation. Moreover, the traditional mechanism, featured by top-down administrative relations, has revealed a number of drawbacks and couldn’t keep in pace with the development of the situation. The system makes the prosecutor an enacting entity with decision power and relevant obligations while handling cases. Decentralization as the core, chief prosecutor system aims at strengthen chief prosecutor’s judicial role, while diminishing its administrative role, which can be an epoch-making fundamental reform. However, chief prosecutor system is still undergoing trial and error. Problems may arise in operation and need to be discussed and solved. This paper demonstrate in an overall sense the feasibility, general framework, problems and solutions in implementing the chief prosecutor system, in the hope of providing reference to further study.
There are 4 chapters in total:
The chapter 1 expounds on the feasibility to practice chief prosecutor system in China.
To exercise chief prosecutor system in China is beneficial to enhance the efficiency of prosecution institution; it is helpful to improve working quality; it can lift the professional level of prosecutors; it meets the compelling needs of prosecution practice. The theoretical grounds to carry out chief prosecutor system can be clarified by the basic principles guiding the general practices in countries all over the globe. The paper initially elaborates on the independence principle which is not only the basis of modern legality and prosecution system, but also universally acknowledged and made the elementary law by each nation. In this part, the author dwells on the comparative argument of the theory and practice of chief prosecutor system in western countries like the USA, France and Japan etc, to explain that prosecutor should be highly independent as an entity in performing public prosecution rights. Correspondingly, chief prosecutor system fully manifests the autonomy and independence of prosecutors. In term of litigious economics, the paper explains the public prosecution, as an activity of a nation to yield its judicial resources, should reduce the cost of judicial resources. The practice of chief prosecutor system, a reform to the prosecution operating mechanism, can simplify decision-making process, shorten case-handling circle, and improve litigious efficiency. The paper analyzes the operating law of public prosecution, to prove chief prosecutor system reflects the former law as well as stresses the dominant role of chief prosecutor. Therefore, the introduction of chief prosecutor system accords with the laws. At last, the paper argues that chief prosecutor system has a ready base in respect of relevant law systems and qualified staff; moreover, it can be linked seamlessly to the chief judge system in judicial process. China meets the essential requirements to practice chief prosecutor system.
Chapter 2, the core part of the paper, recounts the overall framework of chief prosecutor system.
First, it clarifies the scope of functions and powers of chief prosecutor system, which is the most vital and essential part of chief prosecutor system reform. Then how to identify the functions and powers? This paper provides several principles: a. legitimating principle. b. the principle for the procuratorial organs to perform their official functions in a unitary way. c. gradual decentralization principle. d. reasonability principle. Furthermore, in line with the regulations of the Supreme People’s Procuratorate, China, the prosecutor’s terms of reference should be defined through a clear-out: the right to claim, to suggest the practice of simplified procedure, to supplement survey, to extend case deadline, to delay trial or prosecution, etc.
Second, it explicates the operating pattern of chief prosecutor system to clear the obligation of prosecutors, assistants and recorders by explaining the “triad”in real situations.
Third, it gives an account of the appointment of prosecutor in western world to shed light on how to select and crown prosecutor by judging his ethnic merits, competence, etc. It also presents the probationary chief prosecutor system in consideration of enhancing prosecutor army with enabled reserves and put the staff in a benign circle.
Fourth, it narrates the relations between prosecutor and other entities. The author holds that chief procurator, the procurational committee and chief prosecutor should be coordinate as well as subordinate; department director can supervise chief prosecutor but can not instruct. Chief prosecutor and his assistant should be sponsor and coordinator, the director and directed.
Fifth, to assure the fair trial and jurisdiction, it is of necessity to facilitate sufficient guarantees. This chapter suggests in position, official title, material aspects.
Sixth, as for balance of power, the paper briefs the need to supervise chief prosecutor in regard to procedure, internal, external angle, as well as the punishment for negligence.
In chapter 3, the author analyzes the problems in exercising chief prosecutor system especially in primary level procuratorates and continues to suggest solutions from personal view.
Problems are: a. lag-behind of legislation. b. the contradiction between independent performance of right and local interference. c. wrongly positing, chief prosecutor is wrongly viewed as an executive officer rather that an inherently judicial one. d. the stereotype thought that only prosecutors can be the chief prosecutor. e. the serious imbalance between little power and much responsibility of the chief prosecutor. f. various working styles with little improvement in working quality. g. failure to transform thoughts in chief prosecutor, department director and responding chief procurator. h. the long-time breakdown of chief prosecutor conference. i. the unscientific appraisal of chief prosecutor’s work.
Solutions can be: a. to perfect legislation system, providing legislative grounds for carrying out chief prosecutor system in an all-round way. b. to weaken the executive role and emphasize vertical management. c. to standardize working style. The“triad”pattern with chief prosecutor as a leading role can be the goal. d. to streamline the prosecution formality. e. to stress the functioning of the chief prosecutor conference. f. to regulate the chief prosecutor assessment system.
Chapter 4 envisions the deeper exercise of chief prosecutor system in light of prosecution reform.
On one hand, to lift the staff’s comprehensive competence and ensure the stability and competitiveness, chief prosecutors should be professional and elite-oriented. The professional public prosecutor system should be set up.
On the other hand, to enlarge the power scope of chief prosecutors and entitle them the arrest-approval power, chief prosecutor should be able to involve in the pre-trial process, to direct and supervise investigation and evidence-collection of investigation organs with the purpose to serve the public prosecution.
引文
[1]张穹主编:《公诉问题研究》,中国人民公安大学出版社 2000 年版,第 146 页。
[2]张穹主编:《公诉问题研究》,中国人民公安大学出版社 2000 年版,第 146 页。
[3]张穹主编:《公诉问题研究》,中国人民公安大学出版社 2000 年版,第 207 页。
[4]王以真主编:《外国刑事诉讼法学》,北京大学出版社 1990 年版,第193-198 页。
[5][美]琼·雅各比著:《美国检察官研究》,周叶谦等译,中国检察出版社 1990 年版,第 37、49-50 页。
[6]刘立宪、谢鹏程主编:《海外司法改革的走向》,中国方正出版社 2000年版,第 127-128 页。
[7]佐藤荣树著:《日本检察厅法逐条解释》,徐益初等译,检察出版社1990 年版,第 44 页。
[8]程荣斌主编:《检察制度的理论与实践》,中国人民大学出版社 1990年版,第 24 页。
[9]张穹主编:《公诉问题研究》,中国人民公安大学出版社 2000 年版,第 210 页。
[10]张穹:《论执法者的价值取向》,载《人民检察》1999 年第 5 期,第8 页。
[11]谭世贵主编:《刑事诉讼原理与改革》,法律出版社 2002 年版,第93 页。
[12]陈朴生:《刑事经济学》,台湾正中书局 1975 年版,第 327 页。
[13]张穹主编:《公诉问题研究》,中国人民公安大学出版社 2000 年版,第 149 页。
[14]种松志:《论现代公诉制度的构建》,《国家检察官学院学报》2002年 10 月第 10 卷第 5 期,第 72-73 页。
[15]陈文兴:《检察官的任职条件、任免与保障制度比较研究》,孙谦、刘丘滨主编:《检察论丛》第 1 卷,法律出版社 2000 年版,第 182页。
[16]陈业宏、唐鸣:《中外司法制度比较》,商务印书馆 2000 年版,第137-138 页。
[17]张智辉主编:《中国检察》,北京大学出版社 2004 年版,第 7 卷,第511 页。
[18]龙宗智:《为什么要实行主诉检察官办案责任制--论主诉检察官办案责任制》,《人民检察》2000 年第 1 期,第 21 页。
1.张穹《论执法者的价值取向》,载《人民检察》1999 年第 5 期。
2.龙宗智:《为什么要实行主诉检察官办案责任制--论主诉检察官办案责任制》,载《人民检察》2000 年第 1 期。
3.龙宗智:《论主诉检察官办案责任制的依据和实施条件--二评主诉检察官办案责任制》,载《人民检察》2000 年第 2 期。
4.龙宗智:《关于主诉制实施中几个比较突出的问题--三论主诉检察官办案责任制》,载《人民检察》2000 年第 3 期。
5.贺恒扬:《公诉制度的改革与完善》,载《河南省政法管理干部学院学报》2000 年第 3 期。
6. 葛志伟:《论主诉检察官的权力配置》,载《华东政法学院学报》2002年第 1 期。
7. 陈丹、路红青:《主诉检察官制-司法独立的另一种诠释》,载《国家检察官学院学报》2002 年 2 月第 10 卷第 1 期。
8. 李静:《主诉检察官制度在我国的推行与完善》,载《洛阳师范学院学报》2000 年 8 月第 19 卷第 4 期。
9. 林贻影、滕忠:《完善我国主诉检察官制度的法律思考》,载《福建政法管理干部学院学报》2000 年 8 月第 3 期。
10. 廖宁:《主诉检察官制度的实施原则及措施》,载《经济与社会发展》2004 年 1 月第 2 卷第 1 期。
11. 王戬:《走出行政化的误区-主诉检察官制度探析》,载《中央政法管理干部学院学报》2000 年第 4 期。
1. 张穹主编:《公诉问题研究》,中国人民公安大学出版社 2000 年版。
2. 陈文兴著《检察官的任职条件、任免与保障制度比较研究》,载孙谦、刘丘滨主编:《检察论丛》第 1 卷,法律出版社 2000 年版。
3. 陈朴生:《刑事经济学》,台湾正中书局 1975 年版。
4. 程荣斌主编:《检察制度的理论与实践》,中国人民大学出版社 1990年版。
5. 刘立宪、谢鹏程主编:《海外司法改革的走向》,中国方正出版社 2000年版。
6. 王以真主编:《外国刑事诉讼法学》,北京大学出版社 1990 年版。
7. 谭世贵主编:《刑事诉讼原理与改革》,法律出版社 2002 年版。
8. 季刚、刘晶:《公诉改革的理论与实践》,中国检察出版社 2006 年版。
9. 张智辉主编:《中国检察》,北京大学出版社 2004 年版,第 7 卷。
10. 杨晨、单民主编:《中外刑事公诉制度》,法律出版社 2000 年版。
11. 陈光中主编:《刑事诉讼法实施问题研究》,中国法制出版社 2000 年版。
12. 陈瑞华:《刑事诉讼的前沿问题》,中国人民大学出版社 2000 年版。
1. [日]佐藤荣树著:《日本检察厅法逐条解释》,徐益初等译,检察出版社 1990 年版。
2. [美]琼·雅各比著:《美国检察官研究》,周叶谦等译,中国检察出版社 1990 年版。
[2]张穹主编:《公诉问题研究》,中国人民公安大学出版社 2000 年版,第 146 页。
[3]张穹主编:《公诉问题研究》,中国人民公安大学出版社 2000 年版,第 207 页。
[4]王以真主编:《外国刑事诉讼法学》,北京大学出版社 1990 年版,第193-198 页。
[5][美]琼·雅各比著:《美国检察官研究》,周叶谦等译,中国检察出版社 1990 年版,第 37、49-50 页。
[6]刘立宪、谢鹏程主编:《海外司法改革的走向》,中国方正出版社 2000年版,第 127-128 页。
[7]佐藤荣树著:《日本检察厅法逐条解释》,徐益初等译,检察出版社1990 年版,第 44 页。
[8]程荣斌主编:《检察制度的理论与实践》,中国人民大学出版社 1990年版,第 24 页。
[9]张穹主编:《公诉问题研究》,中国人民公安大学出版社 2000 年版,第 210 页。
[10]张穹:《论执法者的价值取向》,载《人民检察》1999 年第 5 期,第8 页。
[11]谭世贵主编:《刑事诉讼原理与改革》,法律出版社 2002 年版,第93 页。
[12]陈朴生:《刑事经济学》,台湾正中书局 1975 年版,第 327 页。
[13]张穹主编:《公诉问题研究》,中国人民公安大学出版社 2000 年版,第 149 页。
[14]种松志:《论现代公诉制度的构建》,《国家检察官学院学报》2002年 10 月第 10 卷第 5 期,第 72-73 页。
[15]陈文兴:《检察官的任职条件、任免与保障制度比较研究》,孙谦、刘丘滨主编:《检察论丛》第 1 卷,法律出版社 2000 年版,第 182页。
[16]陈业宏、唐鸣:《中外司法制度比较》,商务印书馆 2000 年版,第137-138 页。
[17]张智辉主编:《中国检察》,北京大学出版社 2004 年版,第 7 卷,第511 页。
[18]龙宗智:《为什么要实行主诉检察官办案责任制--论主诉检察官办案责任制》,《人民检察》2000 年第 1 期,第 21 页。
1.张穹《论执法者的价值取向》,载《人民检察》1999 年第 5 期。
2.龙宗智:《为什么要实行主诉检察官办案责任制--论主诉检察官办案责任制》,载《人民检察》2000 年第 1 期。
3.龙宗智:《论主诉检察官办案责任制的依据和实施条件--二评主诉检察官办案责任制》,载《人民检察》2000 年第 2 期。
4.龙宗智:《关于主诉制实施中几个比较突出的问题--三论主诉检察官办案责任制》,载《人民检察》2000 年第 3 期。
5.贺恒扬:《公诉制度的改革与完善》,载《河南省政法管理干部学院学报》2000 年第 3 期。
6. 葛志伟:《论主诉检察官的权力配置》,载《华东政法学院学报》2002年第 1 期。
7. 陈丹、路红青:《主诉检察官制-司法独立的另一种诠释》,载《国家检察官学院学报》2002 年 2 月第 10 卷第 1 期。
8. 李静:《主诉检察官制度在我国的推行与完善》,载《洛阳师范学院学报》2000 年 8 月第 19 卷第 4 期。
9. 林贻影、滕忠:《完善我国主诉检察官制度的法律思考》,载《福建政法管理干部学院学报》2000 年 8 月第 3 期。
10. 廖宁:《主诉检察官制度的实施原则及措施》,载《经济与社会发展》2004 年 1 月第 2 卷第 1 期。
11. 王戬:《走出行政化的误区-主诉检察官制度探析》,载《中央政法管理干部学院学报》2000 年第 4 期。
1. 张穹主编:《公诉问题研究》,中国人民公安大学出版社 2000 年版。
2. 陈文兴著《检察官的任职条件、任免与保障制度比较研究》,载孙谦、刘丘滨主编:《检察论丛》第 1 卷,法律出版社 2000 年版。
3. 陈朴生:《刑事经济学》,台湾正中书局 1975 年版。
4. 程荣斌主编:《检察制度的理论与实践》,中国人民大学出版社 1990年版。
5. 刘立宪、谢鹏程主编:《海外司法改革的走向》,中国方正出版社 2000年版。
6. 王以真主编:《外国刑事诉讼法学》,北京大学出版社 1990 年版。
7. 谭世贵主编:《刑事诉讼原理与改革》,法律出版社 2002 年版。
8. 季刚、刘晶:《公诉改革的理论与实践》,中国检察出版社 2006 年版。
9. 张智辉主编:《中国检察》,北京大学出版社 2004 年版,第 7 卷。
10. 杨晨、单民主编:《中外刑事公诉制度》,法律出版社 2000 年版。
11. 陈光中主编:《刑事诉讼法实施问题研究》,中国法制出版社 2000 年版。
12. 陈瑞华:《刑事诉讼的前沿问题》,中国人民大学出版社 2000 年版。
1. [日]佐藤荣树著:《日本检察厅法逐条解释》,徐益初等译,检察出版社 1990 年版。
2. [美]琼·雅各比著:《美国检察官研究》,周叶谦等译,中国检察出版社 1990 年版。