【作者】 倪铁；

【导师】 徐永康；

【作者基本信息】 华东政法大学 ， 法律史， 2008， 博士

【副题名】1906-1937年侦查制度现代化的初期进展

【摘要】 1840年,西方列强挟枪炮之威强行打开了中国的大门,中国面临着“三千年未有之变局”。自此,近代中国政治、经济、社会等各方面都开始发生结构性变革。20世纪初,内外交困的清政府宣布修律变法,以图挽回倾颓败局,一场仿效西方的大规模法律移植运动拉开了历史序幕。修律变法和政制改良并没有使得病入膏肓的专制体制恢复生机,反而直接导致了中国传统法律制度的解体,传统侦查制度也在现代因素的冲击下分崩离析,现代“职权主义”侦查制度得以初步构建。1911年,辛亥革命终结了中国的封建专制时代,随后建立的中华民国并未抛弃前清侦查制度改革成果。在清末侦查制度现代转型的基础上,民国历届政府不断调整侦查程序设置,推进侦查组织的专门化建设,引进现代鉴识科技,传统侦查制度的现代转型在屈折中奋进。本文以中国传统侦查制度现代转型的初期进展为研究对象,选择1906年到1937年中国侦查领域中的制度转型为研究中心。通过一系列探讨,试图挖掘中国侦查制度现代化的历史资源,解析近代中国传统侦查制度是如何获得现代转型的动力,描绘传统侦查制度现代转型的历程,诊断制度变革中的弊病,以求为当前侦查程序改革提供历史镜鉴。本文无非是追寻两个问题的答案:一是传统侦查制度现代转型的道路为何?二是传统侦查制度现代转型的影响因素为何?本文主要从以下几部分展开:序论部分讨论了本文的研究构架、研究范式、研究对象,并简要回顾了相关学术史。第一部分,以中国传统侦查权为研究中心,对中国传统侦查制度进行反思。在中国传统专制社会中,传统侦查权依附于传统审判权,而传统审判权则依附于传统行政权,传统侦查权并没有获得独立的发展空间。但是,作为一项国家刑事司法权能,中国传统侦查权形成了特定的纵向和横向构造。传统侦查权构造具有以下特点:权力配置较为分散,权力划分呈层级式,权限分割体现传统社会的身份等级,权力运作独立性较差。传统侦查权的运作以证据为中心,证据的发现、固定和收集是传统侦查的核心任务。在传统社会中,人们认知能力有限,科学技术水平不高,物证收集能力较差,而言词证据收集手段——“讯”——则相对发达。在传统“纠问式”侦查模式下,“有罪推定”盛行,口供被异化为“证据之王”,这些因素孕育了较为发达的拷讯制度。中国传统侦查制度的运作受到传统权力分配、传统法律观念、传统文化等多方面因素制约,形成了自己独特的发展道路:首先,传统侦查较早地摆脱了对神的盲目依赖,带有“民本主义”色彩。其次,权力因素较早渗入侦查领域,中国传统侦查制度的最高原则是确保专制王权至高无上的统治地位。再次,传统侦查制度本身并不具有独立的程序价值,它被视为是传统行政治理的一种有效工具。最后,传统侦查“重经验轻科学”,它未能发展出高度发达的侦查科学技术。第二部分,描绘西方侦查制度在中国的初步引入,并勾画中国传统侦查制度现代转型的理论准备、制度铺垫和模式选择。19世纪中叶以来,中国专制社会的封闭状态被打破,传统侦查制度逐渐衰微。西方列强攫取了领事裁判权,并设置“国中之国”的租界,在侵犯中国司法主权的同时,瓦解了中国传统侦查制度,但它也为中国侦查制度现代转型提供了全新的制度范本。有识之士纷纷转向西方政治文明寻求救亡图存的良方,司法独立、民主权利、程序法治等现代观念通过各种途径被引入中国。人们对现代侦查权、侦查人员、侦查行为的认知越来越全面和深入,他们要求建立现代刑事司法体制,推行侦查制度改革,这为传统侦查制度的现代转型提供了思想先导。20世纪初,清廷开始编练巡警,筹办巡警部、巡警总厅等现代警察机构,并逐渐组建侦缉队、探访局等专业侦探警察组织,积极推进侦查机构专门化发展。先行启动的警政改革为侦查制度现代转型奠定了坚实的制度基础。在传统侦查制度现代转型过程中,近代中国并没有固守传统侦查制度的窠臼,而是积极移植西方现代侦查制度。在制度转型前期,中国以日本侦查模式为主要效仿对象,通过派员考察、组织留学、延聘顾问、合作办学等方式,引进日本现代侦查制度。随着现代转型的推进,近代中国侦查制度现代化的学习视野扩展到其他欧美国家,中国侦查制度不断地融汇德、奥、美、日等国侦查现代化的制度成果。第三部分,以审检、检警关系为中心,对现代转型过程中的侦查权进行系统考察。在清末刑事司法改革过程中,审判厅、检察厅得以设置,审判权、侦查权等与普通行政权实现了初步分离,司法警察制度也得以创设,侦查权的传统构造被打破。民国时期,侦查制度屡屡变革,侦查权与审判权之间的关系不断进行调整,虽然出现“县知事兼理司法”的不正常现象,但侦查权、审判权分离的大趋势没有根本改变。此外,检察官和司法警察之间的组织关系有所变化,但清末所确立的“检警一体化”格局仍得以延续。检察官拥有侦查指挥权,而警察拥有自行侦查权,这两者在侦查权内部形成了权力的分立与制衡。清末民初,引入预审法官对强制性侦查行为进行司法审查,法官、检察官、司法警察参与侦查程序的运作,这初步形成了法官审判权与检警侦查权相制衡的现代程序机制,有利于保障诉讼参与者的程序权利。在南京临时政府时期,这种制衡格局一度被打破,但北洋政府时期又有所恢复。1928年,南京国民政府对侦查制度进一步调整,取消了法官参与预审的程序设置,审判权与侦查权之间的制衡格局再次被打破。第四部分,清末民初,侦查制度中的一些传统因素逐渐被现代因素所取代,中国传统侦查现代转型获得初期进展。主要体现在以下几方面:首先,这一时期的侦查法律制度建设获得一定成果。一方面,大量关于现代侦查组织、程序运行的法律规范得以颁布,近代侦查初步实现了“有法可依”;另一方面,初建的侦查法制在一定程度上体现了司法文明,一系列废止拷讯的法律制度最能体现这一发展。其次,侦查机构的专门化发展得到以推进。侦缉队、司法处(科)等刑事警察组织日渐发达,司法警察组织也得以单独设置,这两者共同构成了侦查组织专门化的“两翼”。各种侦查专科学校和警察学堂应运而生,侦查人员的职业培训逐渐专门化。最后,近代中国引入西方现代侦查科学技术,痕迹检验、刑事图像、文件检验和法医检验等现代鉴识科技得以发展,指纹室、验枪室、照相室、法医研究所等鉴识部门也得以设立,这也促进了近代中国传统侦查制度的现代转型。第五部分,20世纪前期的中国传统侦查制度现代转型并没有完全成功,现代侦查制度所要求的“现代性”未能彰显。首先,由于特殊的政治和军事环境,特别是“司法党化”的不良影响,侦查权的独立性极差。侦查程序逐渐排除了中立第三方法官的参与,呈现出浓郁的“行政治罪”色彩。其次,侦查组织的设置不尽合理,分工并未“专门”、分布尚未“普遍”、运作尚未“统一”、活动呈现“军事化”色彩。再次,受制于“以毒攻毒”的落后侦查思维、不尽科学的侦查教育,这一时期侦查人员法律素养不高,其侦查水平也极为有限,这导致了不法侦查行为肆虐,侦查人员的整体形象极差。虽然中国传统侦查制度的现代转型取得了初期进展,但制度现代化的任务远未达成。中华人民共和国宣布切断与民国旧法统的联系,仿效前苏联建立起“强职权主义”侦查模式,但侦查制度现代转型的步伐并没有停止。当前,我国侦查制度现代化继续向前推进,侦查组织、侦查教育、侦查人员素质等都有了较大发展。但是,侦查制度的现代化任务仍未完成:侦查权仍难以保持独立,侦查程序还是带有“行政治罪”色彩,侦查制度现代转型初期进展的缺陷没有得到根本纠正。在现行侦查制度改革中,应该培养人们的主体意识和个体本位、权利本位观念,引入审判权以制衡侦查权,充分保障犯罪嫌疑人等侦查参与人的程序权利,以“权力制衡权力”、“权利制衡权力”,从而保证现代侦查程序的正当性。更多还原

【Abstract】 In 1840, western imperialists broke China’s door by force. Since then, China had to confront the social transformation that hadn’t happened ever in the past 3000 years. As a result, China went through structural reform in politics, economy, society and other aspects. Meanwhile, China’s traditional criminal investigation system also collapsed gradually. In 1900s, Qing Dynasty revised the law and developed constitutionalism. But it didn’t save Chinese traditional autocratic sovereign. On the contrary, it accelerated the disintegration of Chinese traditional legal system and the criminal investigation system as well as promoted the primary establishment of modern“authority principle”criminal investigation mode. In 1911, the Xinhai revolution ended Chinese feudalism and founded the Republic of China. The new government took the following steps to speed up the modernization of criminal investigation system: improving the criminal investigation procedure, specializing the criminal police organization, and transplanting modern forensic technologies. Thus, the modernization of Chinese criminal investigation progressed rapidly and greatly.This paper studies the primary modernization of Chinese criminal investigation system between 1906 and 1937. On the basis of a series of discussions, I work at finding the historical resource of this transformation. And the paper analyzes how did the traditional criminal investigation system was promoted, depicts the process and searches the defects. All of these are aimed to answer the following questions: First, What was the process of modernization? Second, what were the factors that influenced the modernization?The part of introduction involves the following aspects: the study structure, study method and object. And I review the relative academic history.The first part studies Chinese traditional criminal investigation system. In the traditional society, the criminal investigation power belonged to the judicial authority, so the traditional criminal investigation power didn’t develop independently. As a function of the national criminal justice, China’s traditional criminal investigation authority formed a special structure, which showed following characteristics. Power was allocated according to ranks and status. The power couldn’t operate independently. The run of Chinese traditional criminal investigation focused on the evidence, so the searching, fixing, and collecting of evidences were its main tasks. Due to insufficient knowledge and low-developed forensic technology in Chinese traditional society, the staff paid more attention to the verbal evidence than material evidence.Under the traditional“authority principle”criminal procedural mode,“presumption of guilt”was very popular. Oral evidence was considered as“King Evidence”. All of these factors cultivated the highly-developed“Extortion by Torture”. Chinese traditional criminal investigation system formed its own way: Firstly, it got rid of“Divine Determination”primarily. And the system embodied people-based doctrine. Secondly, in order to guarantee the monarch sovereign, the dictatorial power mixed in the ancient criminal investigation. Finally, judicial officers paid too much attention to the criminal investigation experience rather than science. So, ancient China didn’t cultivate highly-developed forensic technology.In the second part, I depict the transplanting of modern criminal investigation system from the west. And I describe the theoretical and institutional preparation for the modernization of criminal investigation system. After the mid-19th century, Chinese seclusion was broken up and the traditional criminal investigation system fell down gradually. The imperialists snatched the consular jurisdiction and settled the concessions. Those factors disintegrated Chinese traditional legal system. While invading Chinese judicial sovereignty, they set examples for the transformation of Chinese criminal investigation system. The ideas were imported into China, such as judicial independency, democracy, legal procedure, etc. People got more knowledge about the modern criminal investigation such as power, staff and act. Those ideas provided guidance for the criminal investigation systematical transformation. At the beginning of 20th century, Qing government started to establish modern police system, as well as modern criminal investigation department. It propelled the specialization of criminal investigation. The primary reforms established systematical basis for the modernization. In the transformation, China actively transplanted the western modern criminal investigation system instead of adhering to Chinese traditional mode. At the beginning, they followed the example of Japan by generally imitating Japanese system via visiting Japan, studying overseas and employing Japanese consultants. With the further development of modernization, China also learned from America and Europe. Therefore, the modernization comprehensively absorbed factors from German, Austria, America, Japan and other countries.The third part systematically analyzes the criminal investigation power in the modernization. During the judicial reform at the end of Qing Dynasty, modern court system and prosecutorial system were established, leading to the primary separation of judicial power from administrative authority. The judicial police system was established, and it broke up the traditional structure of criminal investigation power. After 1911, the system of criminal investigation was always changing; plus, the relationship between criminal investigation power and judicial authority was constantly adjusted. Though there once emerged such abnormal phenomenon that“County Magistrate holds the judicial power”. As a whole, the modern tendency of separating criminal investigation power from judicial power wasn’t fundamentally abandoned. In addition, the personnel relationship between Procurators and policemen varied while the“Integration of Procurator and Policeman”maintained. The procurators could command policemen to investigate criminal cases, and policemen could investigate independently, as a result, they could balance mutually. Between 1906 and 1937, the pre-judge system was introduced into China. Judges, procurators and criminal policemen once participated together in modern criminal investigation procedure. Then the balance of them was kept. And it profited protection of the rights of procedural participators. That pattern was broken down during the period of Nanjing Provisional Government, but was later restored by Beiyang Government. In 1928, Nanjing Government made some further reforms on criminal investigation system. It abolished the preliminary hearing system. As a result, the balance between judicial power and criminal investigation power was broken up again.The forth part displays the fact that Chinese traditional factors in criminal investigation system were replaced by modern factors, and the modernization gained some primary development. It was mainly reflected as follows: Firstly, a large number of regulations on criminal investigation were promulgated and revised constantly. The modern criminal investigation could be implemented through application of the rules. Secondly, the criminal investigation organizations were specialized, and the criminal investigation departments were more and more sophisticated. Meanwhile, the judicial police department was established separately. Thirdly, with further modernization, several kinds of Criminal Investigation Academies and Police Colleges came into being. So, the vocational education of criminal investigation developed a lot. Finally, China imported western modern criminal investigation science and technology. Trace inspection, forensic image, document and forensic medical examination, etc. were developed.The fifth part: in the early 20th century, the modernization of Chinese traditional criminal investigation system didn’t get complete success, for it failed to show“Modern Characteristics”. Firstly, under the special political and military environment, criminal investigation power only gained little independence. The run of criminal investigation procedure gradually expelled judges, and it showed“Executive Punishment Procedural Characteristics”. Secondly, the establishment of criminal investigation organizations was irrational. Thirdly, the criminal investigation procedure showed military characteristics. Finally, curbed by the idea“Set a Thief to Catch a Thief”and unscientific investigation education, the staff weren’t well qualified and their capacity was very limited. That led to the abuse of illegal investigation, so the impression of the staffs was extremely bad.People’s Republic of China imitated Soviet Union to construct the“Super Authority Principle”criminal investigation mode. But, the modernization of criminal investigation system has never been suspended. Nowadays, China’s criminal investigation system has developed a lot in the organization, criminal investigation education as well as the staff’s quality. But the aims of modernization of criminal investigation system haven’t achieved. It is difficult for the criminal investigation power to keep independent. And it shows“Executive Punishment Procedural Characteristics”. The weakness in the primary development of Chinese criminal investigation system has not been corrected completely. We should cultivate people’s subject consciousness, individual and right orientated concept and by importing the judicial review system, fully guarantee the procedural rights of both suspects and other participators.更多还原