侦查主体论

【作者】 王光成；

【导师】 徐静村；

【作者基本信息】 西南政法大学 ， 法学， 2004， 硕士

【摘要】 侦查主体直接关系到刑事侦查程序查清案件事实，收集犯罪证据的效率和能力，并最终决定刑事诉讼惩罚犯罪和保障人权的双重目的的实现。因此，对侦查主体展开研究，无论是在理论上，还是在实践中，都具有非常重要的意义。而在我国现行的刑事司法体制下，侦查主体设置的缺陷和侦查主体权力制约机制的失灵，已严重制约了我国侦查程序对效率、人权、公正的追求。因此，重新配置侦查主体以及理顺其与其他诉讼主体的关系已经成为我国刑事诉讼中亟待解决的课题。故此，本文就侦查主体问题展开探讨，以资有助于立法和实践。 本文约四万五千字，除引论外，共分为三章。 在引论中，笔者首先通过对“主体”内涵的阐释揭示了侦查主体在侦查程序中的重要性。并结合我国侦查主体配置存在的问题，以及当前我国所处的特定司法环境，指出当前对我国侦查主体的研究，具有重要的意义和价值。 第一章是侦查主体的概论。首先，笔者认为侦查主体的范围有狭义和广义之分，根据对侦查主体概念的不同界定，解读了侦查主体的外延，近而把侦查主体的概念界定为拥有侦查权的机关或个人。其次，通过对侦查主体概念的把握，笔者认为侦查主体的特征包括三方面：第一，以追诉犯罪嫌疑人刑事责任为其活动主旨；第二，必须拥有侦查权；第三，其权力的行使受到法律的严格控制。再次，笔者认为在侦查权的性质上，侦查权属于行政权，其主体的配置应当遵循行政权的运作逻辑；在侦查权与公诉权的关系上，侦查权被公诉权所涵盖，侦查主体的配置应遵循侦查权与公诉权的同质性和隶属性；最后，在诉讼的价值观层面上，笔者认为侦查主体的配置应考虑犯罪控制观和人权保障观的影响。 第二章是两大法系国家侦查主体述评。文章简要地介绍了大陆法系中的法国、德国、日本和英美法系中的英国、美国的侦查主体设置。并从侦查主体的范围、主要侦查主体间的相互关系、侦查主体的权力三个角度对两大法系的侦查主体的特征进行了总结。在大陆法系国家，其侦查主体配置的特点如下：第一，从侦查主体范围上来看，为狭义的侦查主体；第二，从侦查主体间的相互关系来看，检主警辅；第三，从侦查主体享有的侦查权力上看，其权力过于庞大。在英美法系国家，其侦查主体配置的特点如下:第一，从侦查主体范围上来看，为广义的侦查主体;第二，从主要侦查主体间的相互关系来看，检警相对独立;第三，从侦查主体享有的侦查权来看，其权力受到的限制较多。在分析了两大法系在侦查主体设置上的特点后，笔者解读了造成这种差异的原因并分析了不同侦查主体设置模式的优劣。 第三章是我国侦查主体的现状及重构。文章首先从侦查主体的设置、主要侦查主体间的相互关系、侦查主体的权力三个角度对我国侦查主体的现状进行了介绍，并评析了我国目前侦查主体在这三个方面存在的诸多缺陷。最后，在借鉴外国侦查主体成功经验的基础上，结合我国刑事司法所面临的实际情况，提出了重新构建我国侦查主体的具体设想。笔者认为，侦查主体重构的前提是重塑侦诉关系和侦审关系。在此基础上首先对侦查主体的范围进行了重新界定:第一，明确私人侦探及其类似机构不是侦查主体;第二，取消监狱的侦查主体资格;第三，在特殊领域增设专门侦查主体。其次，文章对我国侦查主体权力内容进行了重新配置:第一，增加强制采样、监听、诱惑侦查和卧底侦查的立法规定;第二，取消我国侦查主体对涉及限制、剥夺公民人身自由、财产权利的强制性侦查措施的决定权。再次，为了防止侦查权的任意行使，文章还对我国侦查主体权力行使设计了程序规制。一方面笔者赞成将我国侦查行为分为任意侦查行为和强制侦查行为，并建议对强制侦查行为通过司法令状和司法审查加以规制;另一方面应当强调违反程序的侦查行为的法律后果，通过程序来规范侦查行为。最后，笔者还建议加大侦查技术、设备的投入和提高侦查人员素质，以完善我国侦查主体重构的配套机制。更多还原

【Abstract】 Investigating subjects influence criminal procedure, such as making a thorough investigation of legal cases facts, the efficiency of collecting evidences and so on. Investigating subjects influence the purposes of punishing crimes and safeguarding human rights in criminal procedure ultimately. Therefore, studying investigating subjects is meaningful both theoretically and practically. In current judicial system, drawbacks in setting up investigating subjects have restricted the pursuance of efficiency, human rights, and justice in procedure of investigation. Considering the facts mentioned above, redistributing investigating subjects and adjusting the relationships among them are becoming necessary. Consequently, investigating subjects are concerned in this article in order to benefit the legislation and judicial practice.There are three chapters and about forty-five thousand words in this thesis. In the preface, by means of explaining the intension of "subjects", the author maintains that investigating subjects are utmost important in procedure of investigation. At the same time, considering the current judicial environments and problems in distributing investigating subjects, the author holds that the study of investigating subjects is especially valuable.The first chapter is the introduction of this thesis. In a narrow sense and in a broad sense, the range of investigating subjects is different. According to the different understanding of investigating subjects, the author analyzes the extension of investigating subjects and gives a definition of investigating subjects. According to the definition of investigating subjects, the author summarizes characteristics of investigating subjects. At the same time, In the light of the nature of investigating power, the author agrees that investigating powers belong to administrative power and investigating power are included by power of prosecution. Furthermore, the author maintains that the value of criminal procedures influences the investigating subjects deeply.The second chapter introduces and analyzes the investigating subjects in two legal systems in the angle of comparative law. First of all, the author gives briefintroductions of the investigating subjects in two legal systems. Afterwards, the author summarizes the characteristics of investigating subjects in three aspects. The first one is the scope of the investigating subjects; the second one is the relationship between different investigating subjects; the third one is the exercise of power of investigating subjects. After the analysis, the author also expounds reasons that cause the differences, and compares the advantages and disadvantages between two legal systems.The third chapter expounds the present situation of investigating subjects in our country and reconstructs the investigating subjects. First of all, the author introduces investigating subjects in three aspects. The first one is the scope of the investigating subjects; the second one is the relationship between different investigating subjects; the third one is the exercise of power of investigating subjects. After introduction, the author evaluates the flaws in these aspects. Considering the flaws in our judicial situation, the author suggests using the experiences of other countries for references and reconstructing our investigating subjects. There are five sections in this chapter. The first one is the prerequisite of reconstructing investigating subjects. The second one is reconstructing investigating subjects. The third one is reconstructing investigating powers. The forth one is the restricting of the procedure with which investigating subjects are complied when exercising their powers. Finally, the author also suggests adopting advanced techniques, updating equipments and improving the competence of investigators to form a complete set.更多还原