【作者】 崔进文；

【导师】 黄学贤；

【作者基本信息】 苏州大学 ， 宪法学与行政法学， 2012， 博士

【摘要】 警察行政权失范是一个亟待解决的常态问题。警察行政权失范的根本原因是：警察行政权过于“强大”与“自主”，既压缩了公民权利，也使得其他权力无法对其有效发挥制约作用。因此，最根本的解决办法是通过权力的重新配置，消除这种特点，即：一是缩减公安机关的行政管辖事项；二是通过“令状制度”实现由检察机关控制警察行政强制措施；三是通过“处罚司法化”实现由法院主要行使警察行政处罚权；四是对基层公安机关实行民主化的领导体制。本文分六章分别论述了警察行政权失范的概念和表现形式、警察行政权失范的原因、警察行政权配置的理论基础及如何重新配置等。在第一章，首先，基于警察行政权的概念是全文的出发点，我们将警察行政权的概念厘定为：公安机关及其人民警察为了维护社会秩序，依据行政法律、法规、规章和其它规范性文件的规定，对公共事务进行管理和为社会成员提供服务的权力；其次，我们引入了“失范”范畴，即用“警察行政权失范”对“孙志刚事件”、“躲猫猫”事件等予以概括与称谓，并将“警察行政权失范”定义为：公安机关及其人民警察违反法律规范和合理性要求运行警察行政权；第三，我们对实际中发生的警察行政权失范现象进行了研究、分类，将其表现形式概括为超越职权、滥用职权、行政不作为、错误地履行职责、通过“立法”扩权和违反法定程序共六大类。在第二章，我们介绍了有关警察行政权失范原因的一些主要观点，并将这些观点的研究方法归纳为权力结构模型、环境模型、阻力模型三个分析模型。基于这三个分析模型所存在的不足，我们从权力与权力、权力与权利关系视角，创设了运动模型――警察行政权在运动状态下，从其自身的动力与阻力方面找寻失范的原因。在运动模型下，我们认为警察行政权失范的几个主要原因是：公民价值理念得以迅速提高、警察行政权自身过于“强大”与“自主”、公民权利弱小、行政复议和行政诉讼的监督制约作用不足。其中警察行政权自身过于“强大”与“自主”是根本原因。在第三章，我们用理想类型的方法，从权力与权利关系的视角，结合世界典型国家的警察制度，架构了“监护人”型警察角色、“守夜人”型警察角色和“经理人”型警察角色。“监护人”型警察角色的特征是：奉行国家主义；超级中央集权；警察行为不受司法控制；大量采取秘密监视手段；职能宽泛。“守夜人”型警察角色的特征是：奉行古典自由主义；保持政治中立；警察机构呈现分散、独立、自治特性；警察行为严格受到司法控制。“经理人”型警察角色的特征是：奉行现代自由主义；集权与自治相结合的管理体制；警察即时强制权大，处罚权小。“监护人”型警察角色呈现了警察权远超公民权的一种极端状态。“守夜人”型警察角色表明警察权过于羸弱，也是一种极端状态。“经理人”型警察角色呈现了警察权与公民权利的动态平衡，既可保证警察有所作为，又有利于保护公民权利，应作为我国重新配置警察行政权的目标和理论基础。在第四章，我们认为，公安机关确立行政事项的管辖标准是“需强制力的紧急危害防止”，即只有需经常采取紧急强制措施的行政事项才归公安机关管辖，其它的由其他行政机关管辖，在必要时公安机关可予以协助。在此标准下，公安机关仅负责危害即将发生的预防，危害发生的较前期预防由别的行政机关负责。具体而言，公安机关应将户口管理、看守所监管、边防管理等移交给其他行政机关管辖，接收由城管管辖的商贩无证经营、占道经营、乱设摊点等事项。在第五章，首先讨论了警察行政强制措施的控制，即对拘传、强制抽血、检查（搜查）、秘密监视等严重涉及公民人身自由和人格尊严的强制措施，需事先取得由检察机关签发的令状。但对是否采取即时强制措施的判断上，采取合理怀疑标准，增强警察的现场处置能力；其次，讨论行政处罚权的分配，即警告、较小数额的罚款、没收较小数额的财物等行政罚由公安机关径行裁决；对劳动教养、收容教育、拘留、责令停产停业、吊销执照、较大数额的罚款、限止出入境等关涉公民人身自由和较大财产利益的行政罚，由公安机关直接移送至法院，由法院裁决。但对生效裁决的执行，仍由公安机关负责。在第六章，我们论述了我国当前公安机关领导体制所存在的弊端，介绍与评价了当前学界关于完善我国公安机关领导体制的观点，分析了法国、韩国、日本和英国的警察领导体制，得到四个方面的启示：一是人事任免和经费承担是控制警察的主要手段；二是警察必须体现地方性；三是民主化管理是一种趋势；四是警察领导体制受国情的影响较大。进而，我们认为，对地市级以上公安机关，从人事任免和经费承担两个方面强化上级公安机关的领导权；对县级公安机关，成立由非警察人员组成的“公安委员会”，实行民主化的领导体制。更多还原

【Abstract】 The abnormality of police administrative power has become a distinctive problemneed to be solved. As we believed, the fundamental cause of this problem is the characterof police administrative power which can be summarized as “strong” and “autonomy”.Therefore, the most effective solution is the reallocation of police administrative power,which four ways was suggested in this article. the first is to reduce the administrativejurisdiction authorities on the public security organ, the second is to control thecompulsory administrative measures by means of the Writ system,the third is to entitlethe Court the police administrative penalty through the judicial punishment,the fourth isto practice the democratization of leadership system.Six chapters here discussed about the concept and modality of the policeadministrative power, the reasons of abnormality of police administrative power, thetheoretical basis of police administrative power allocation, and how to allocate the policeadministrative power concretely.The first chapter defined the concept of the police administrative power,which isthe starting point of the full text. We put forward that the police administrative power is theright of public security organs with which public affairs was managed and public servicewas provided according to laws, regulations, rules other regulated document by policeofficers. Then we define the abnormality of police administrative power as the violation oflaws, regulations and reasonable requirements of public security organs and police officers.then, we research the abnormality of police administrative power that acted against thereasonable requirements, and classify the manifestation to be six expression forms, which are abuses of authority, power abuse, administrative omission, wrong performance of duty,expanding power by legislation and breaking legal procedure.The second chapter introduces some reasons of abnormality of police administrativepower, then summarizes the research methods to be three analysis models: power structure,environment and obstruction. Based on the deficiencies of the three analysis models, weestablished the motion model from the visual of the relationship of power and right. That is,we search for the reasons of the abnormality of power from the motivation and obstructionof police administrative power when it was practiced. Under the motion model, we thoughtthe primary causes of abnormality of police administrative power are as follows: the rapidenhancing of sense of value, the police administrative power which is too much strong, therights of citizens which is too small and weak, and the weak supervision and restriction ofadministrative reconsideration is also an element, as well as the supervision and restrictionof administrative proceedings to be limited. In which the abnormality of policeadministrative power is the fundamental cause as it can be charactered and summarizedas "strong" and "autonomy".In the third chapter, we use the ideal-type method, combing with worldwide typicalpolice system, to construct three types of roles of police,which is guardian-police-role,night watchman-police-role and manager-police-role with the view of right relations.Therefore,firstly，the characteristics of guardian-police-role are carrying out the status,super centralization (becoming an independent system), the police action out of the judicialcontrol, adopting the discreet surveillance method massively and broad functions, and thesecond, it is the characteristics of night watchman-police-role that are carrying out theliberalism, maintaining neutrality politically, police organization presenting dispersing,independent and autonomous. Furthermore,the characteristics of manager-police-role arecarrying out the neo-liberalism, adopting the combination management system ofcentralization and autonomy, super immediate compulsion power and weak punishmentpower. However,the guardian-police-role reflects an extreme condition of the police poweroverstepping civil rights, for the guardian-police-role reveals another extreme condition that the police power is too weak. Hence,we advice the manager-police-role presenting thedynamic balance of police power and civil rights to be the goal and theoretical basis of there-allocation of police executive power because it not only guarantee the police powerwell but also protect civil rights better.In the fourth chapter, we believe that the standard of administrative jurisdiction issuesestablished by public security organs is ’the urgent coercion to prevent harm’,i.e. only theadministrative issures which need to be taken by the regularly urgent measures should beunder the jurisdiction of the public security organs, and the others could be governed byother administrative organs under the help of public security organs if necessary. If so,Under this criterion, the public security organs shall only be responsible for the preventionof imminent harm, while the damage occurred previously should be up to the otheradministrative authorities. Specifically, which the issures includes the management ofregistered permanent residence, the supervision of prison, the management of boarddefense to the relevant administrative organs. Otherwise,The public security organs shouldreceive the issures including the vendors’ operation without license, road occupation,arbitrary institution stalls and other matters from the urban management officeIn the fifth chapter, firstly we advocate to control the administration of the policeforce by ’the writ system’. we insist that some measures must firstly obtain a warrant issuedby the procurator, while includes the imposition of a mandatory blood test, inspectionpersonal check and other serious suspects involved in civil liberty and human dignitycoercive measures. And then,In the side of compulsive controlling measures, we proposedto take "reasonable doubt" to enhance the ability on site control of police official on thedecissions whether it need to be taken immediate compulsive measures or not. Secondlywe discuss about the allocation of administrative penalty. We suggest that theassignments like warning, small amount of fine and property forfeiture may be decideddirectly by the public security organs,while the other assignments such as reeducationthrough labor, detention centers, detention, order to cease licenses revoking, large amountof fines, limiting immigration as well as other administrative penalties which involve citizens’ liberty and property interests should be ruled by the court directly as which can betransferred to the court by the public security organs. However, the implementation of thedecision into effect is still up to the public security organs.In the sixth chapter, we discuss about the disadvantages of police leadership system ofChina. Then we introduce and evaluate the viewpoints about how to make this systemperfect by pointing out the current academia. We also analyze the police leadership systemfrom France, Korea, Japan and the U.K. We learned that firstly the personnel appointmentsand removals is the main measures of controlling police officers, and secondly, the policemust reflect local, thirdly, we need democratic management which now is a trend, and thefouth. national conditions would have great influences of the Police leadership system. Asa result, we should strengthen the leadership of the superior public security organ byimprovement of human resources and funds on the municipal public security level. And forthe county public security organs we advise to establish the “Public Security Committee”which attended by the non public security personnel to carry out democratic leadershipsystem.更多还原