[1]卢少锋,朱雨薇.捕与诉:“合久必分,分久必合”的检察机制[J].常州大学学报(社会科学版),2020,21(01):31-38.[doi:10.3969/j.issn.2095-042X.2020.01.004]
　Lu Shaofeng,Zhu Yuwei.The Procuratorial Mechanism of Arrest and Prosecution: “after a Long Period of Division, Tend to Unite; after a Long Period of Unity, Tend to Divide”[J].Journal of Changzhou University(Social Science Edition),2020,21(01):31-38.[doi:10.3969/j.issn.2095-042X.2020.01.004]
点击复制

捕与诉:“合久必分,分久必合”的检察机制()
分享到：

常州大学学报(社会科学版)[ISSN:2095-042X/CN:32-1821/C]

卷:
第21卷
期数:
2020年01期
页码:
31-38
栏目:
政治·法学研究
出版日期:
2020-03-10

文章信息/Info

Title:
The Procuratorial Mechanism of Arrest and Prosecution: “after a Long Period of Division, Tend to Unite; after a Long Period of Unity, Tend to Divide”
作者:
卢少锋; 朱雨薇
Author(s):
Lu Shaofeng; Zhu Yuwei
关键词:
“捕诉合一”;  检察机构;  司法化
Keywords:
unity of arrest and prosecution;  procuratorial organ;  judicial tendency
分类号:
D926.3
DOI:
10.3969/j.issn.2095-042X.2020.01.004
文献标志码:
A
摘要:
“捕诉合一”从最高人民检察院提出改革试点以来就备受争议,审查逮捕和审查起诉本来分开执行,就是为了形成相互之间的制约, 但是在中国的司法背景下未必就是合适的。从探索“捕诉合一”提出的原因开始探析,比较中国和其他国家在“审检”模式、“检警”模式上的不同,然后从反面来论证我国的法院还不适合拥有审查逮捕权,以及作为检察机关内部机构设置的审查逮捕和审查起诉部门之间的关系。接着,分析在“捕诉合一”模式下可能产生的问题,问题既有法学理论上的,也有司法实践过程中的。有的问题,或许现在还不能很好地解答,但是随着社会发展、法律发展,时间会给出更好的答案。最后,就审查逮捕问题的“司法化”进行了分析,肯定了“司法化”的必要性,并希望通过后续程序中审查羁押程序的救济,来进一步解决审查逮捕中的人权保障问题。
Abstract:
The “unity of arrest and prosecution” has been a controversial issue since the Supreme People's Procuratorate proposed the experimental reform.The arrest examination and examination of prosecution have been implemented separately for mutual restriction, but it may not be appropriate in China's judicial background.This paper starts with the exploration of the reasons for the “unity of arrest and prosecution”, compares the differences between China and other countries in the modes of “examination” and “procuratorate and police”, then demonstrates from the opposite side that Chinese courts are not yet suitable to have the right to examine arrest, and discusses the relationship between arrest examination department and examination of prosecution department inside the procuratorial organ. Then it analyzes the problems that may arise under the mode of “unity of arrest and prosecution”, both in legal theory and in the process of judicial practice.Some problems may not be well solved yet, but with the development of the society and the law, time will give a better answer.Finally, this paper analyzes the “judicial tendency” of arrest examination, affirms the necessity of “judicial tendency”, and hopes to further resolve the issue of human rights protection in the arrest examination through the review of the relief of detention procedures in the follow-up procedure.

参考文献/References:

[1] 陈瑞华.异哉,所谓“捕诉合一”者[EB/OL].(2018-05-30)[2019-03-20]. http://dy.163.com/v2/article/detail/DJ2SMUDR0530W1MT.html.
[2] 龙宗智.刑事诉讼中检察官客观义务的内容及展开 [J].人民检察,2016(Z1):48-51.
[3] 宋英辉,吴宏耀.刑事审判前程序研究 [M].北京:中国政法大学出版社,2002:39-42.
[4] 甄贞.检察制度比较研究 [M].北京:法律出版社,2010:557-570.
[5] 徐尉.日本检察制度概述 [M].北京:中国政法大学出版社,2011:56-65.
[6] 宗玉琨.德国刑事诉讼法典 [M].北京:知识产权出版社,2013:53-58.
[7] 陈瑞华.论检察机关的法律职能 [J].政法论坛,2018,36(1):3-17.
[8] 米尔伊安·达玛什卡.司法和国家权力的多种面孔 [M]. 郑戈,译.北京:中国政法大学出版社, 2015:24-30.
[9] 步洋洋.除魅与重构:“捕诉合一”的辩证思考 [J].东方法学,2018(6):132-140.
[10]尤瓦尔·赫拉利.人类简史:从动物到上帝 [M]. 林俊宏,译.北京:中信出版社,2014.
[11] 陈瑞华,程序正义理论 [M].北京:中国法制出版社,2014:141-146.
[12] 沈海平.捕诉关系的辩证思考 [J].国家检察官学院学报,2018,26(4):51-63.
[13] 洪浩.我国“捕诉合一”模式的正当性及其限度 [J].中国刑事法杂志,2018(4):28-42.
[14] 叶青.关于“捕诉合一”办案模式的理论反思与实践价值 [J].中国刑事法杂志,2018(4):3-11.
[15] 张建伟.“捕诉合一”的改革是一项危险的抉择?——检察机关“捕诉合一”之利弊分析[J].中国刑事法杂志,2018(4):12-27.
[16] 王兆鹏.美国刑事诉讼法 [M].北京:北京大学出版社,2014:63-68.
[17] 陈瑞华.刑事诉讼的前沿问题 [M].5版.北京:中国人民大学出版社,2016:811-815.

备注/Memo

备注/Memo:
作者简介:卢少锋,法学博士,郑州大学法学院副教授、硕士研究生导师; 朱雨薇,郑州大学法学院硕士研究生。
更新日期/Last Update: 2020-03-10