律师参与审查逮捕程序存在的问题与对策

逮捕是剥夺犯罪嫌疑人人身自由的最严厉的司法强制措施.应当由律师参与审查逮捕程序,维护犯罪嫌疑人人权和其他诉讼权利.但现时律师参与审查逮捕程序不易把握审查逮捕与侦查的内部衔接机制.主客观情况使检察官并不热衷律师参与审查逮捕程序.解决这些问题应当修改刑事诉讼法,在法律层次建立律师参与审查逮捕、公开听证、当事人及受托律师申请复议复核以及应当讯问犯罪嫌疑人等制度.构建检察、侦查、律师间三角制衡关系,使审查逮捕程序公开透明,实现律师参与审查逮捕程序诉讼法律化.     

审查逮捕程序诉讼化改革的路径考量——以《刑事诉讼法》的修改为背景

审查逮捕程序诉讼化强调逮捕程序应当由控辩审三方主体参与,检察机关在侦查机关及犯罪嫌疑人之间保持中立地位,保障犯罪嫌疑人及其辩护人的有效参与,决定逮捕的过程须遵循正当程序的要求。当前我国的审查逮捕程序普遍存在行政化、追诉化、救济虚无化、"一劳永逸"化等诸多问题,2012年修改通过的《刑事诉讼法》已经对此做出了适当的回应。但是,审查逮捕程序的诉讼化是今后我国刑事诉讼改革发展的必然趋势,仍需要对审查逮捕程序进行理念重构和制度创新。     

审查逮捕案件讯问笔录的制作

<正>审查逮捕阶段讯问犯罪嫌疑人是贯彻落实少捕慎诉慎押刑事司法政策的重要环节，对准确把握案件定性、核实证据、评价犯罪嫌疑人社会危险性、开展侦查活动监督工作等具有重要意义。一、制作审查逮捕讯问笔录的必要性审查逮捕讯问笔录是检察机关在办理审查逮捕案件时，核实侦查机关提请批准逮捕的犯罪事实是否有证据证明及证据是否查证属实；查明犯罪嫌疑人是否有社会危险性，是否有必要采取逮捕强制措施；     

修改后刑诉法的实施与审查逮捕

修改后刑诉法对逮捕条件的修正和逮捕程序的完善,初步建构了诉讼化构造的审查逮捕模式,弱化了逮捕持续剥夺被追诉者人身自由的功能,强化了犯罪嫌疑人在诉讼中的主体地位。要确保审查逮捕工作适应修正后的逮捕制度的要求,就必须培植与诉讼化构造审查逮捕模式相适应的逮捕观,建构控辩对抗的审查逮捕机制,锻造一支具有现代诉讼理念的审查逮捕队伍,努力使审查逮捕的实践运行适应逮捕法治化的要求。     

检察机关审查逮捕程序之完善

审查逮捕实践中，由于诉讼价值目标发生偏秽、执法理念出现偏差、逮捕条件难以操作以及司法机制存在缺陷等原因，造成当前以捕代侦普遍化、批延程序形同虚设、逮捕条件掌握失范等。完善逮捕决定程序，需要从认识层面进行价值纠偏与理念重塑，从立法层面对逮捕条件的内涵进行准确解析并对审查逮捕的规则予以细化，从司法层面进行制度建构和探索完善相关机制。     

审查逮捕案件意见书制作中存在的问题及对策

《审查逮捕案件意见书》是检察机关为依法行使检察职权，由专门人员对侦查机关或者侦查部门提请批准（决定）逮捕的案件经过审查后提出捕与不捕意见的检察文书。最高人民检察院侦监厅在2002年审查逮捕工作方式改革中将《逮捕案件审查报告》和《逮捕案件审批表》整合为《审查逮捕案件意见书》，这种改革方式简化了内部工作程序，对有效解决办理审查逮捕案件时限紧、任务重、质量要求高等问题起到了积极的促进作用。     

审查逮捕案件证据的审查与判断

审查逮捕是检察机关法律监督的职能之一,近年来,法律对审查逮捕的要求越来越高,检察机关审查逮捕的主要任务就是审查所报请逮捕的案件证据是否符合逮捕条件,依法做出对犯罪嫌疑人逮捕与否的决定,要防止错捕、办错案最重要的就是要严把案件的证据关.牢牢把握好逮捕案件中证据材料的审查与运用,是确保案件准确的关键.     

公诉部门能否直接报请批准逮捕决定

《人民检察院刑事诉讼规则》(以下简称《规则》)第二百六十条规定:“审查起诉部门经审查后认为需要逮捕犯罪嫌疑人的,应当参照本规则第五章第二节的规定移送审查逮捕部门办理”。《规则》第五章第二节的规定是指人民检察院直接立案侦查的案件,需要逮捕犯罪嫌疑人的,由侦查部门移送至审查逮捕部门审查的一系列规定。刑事诉讼实践中,人民检察院公诉部门受理侦查机关(部门)移送审查起诉的案件时,经常遇到犯罪嫌疑人未经审查逮捕部门审查批捕或者已经审查逮捕部门审查后以不同情形不予批准逮捕,因而侦查部门对犯罪嫌疑人采取取保候审或监视居住…     

职务犯罪案件审查逮捕程序改革之反思

职务犯罪案件决定逮捕权"上提一级"的改革实践两年多来暴露出很多问题,如存在宪法法律障碍、损害司法公平、增大司法成本、降低诉讼效率以及犯罪嫌疑人权利救济途径缺乏等。法学理论界已有的其他改革方案也利弊参半,不具有可行性。综合借鉴已有各种方案的优劣,实行职务犯罪案件异地同级审查逮捕程序改革模式可能是较好的选择。异地同级审查逮捕改革方案有利之处甚多。根据就近原则、"一传一"原则、参考办案数量原则确定异地同级审查逮捕的检察院,并从移送审查逮捕程序、审查决定逮捕程序、侦查活动监督程序、发现不应当逮捕纠正程序、不服不逮捕决定异议程序、犯罪嫌疑人权利救济程序及其他程序等7个方面进行程序设计。     

完善附条件逮捕工作机制研究

附条件逮捕制度产生于检察实践，主要解决审查逮捕环节对于一些重大、疑难案件的侦查取证与审查认定之间的矛盾，在实际运行中起到有效打击重大刑事犯罪的作用，但同时也存在适用范围过广，侦查机关消极应对，撤捕率、轻判率过高等问题。本文通过对北京市某基层检察院三年来附条件逮捕工作情况进行归纳分析，就完善附条件逮捕工作机制提出若干对象建议。     

附条件逮捕制度批判

附条件逮捕制度是近年检察机关出台的一项审查逮捕改革措施,其核心是将原本不符合逮捕条件的犯罪嫌疑人批准逮捕。该制度违反《刑事诉讼法》第60条之规定,违背程序法定和刑事司法解释的原则,背离刑事诉讼的价值目标,不符合司法改革的基本原则。该制度难以避免逮捕适用的扩大化和超期羁押现象。从实施情况看,存在着任意扩大适用范围、撤捕比例高、违背程序现象严重、不利于提高公安机关的办案质量等弊端。实施附条件逮捕制度只会扩张检察机关的逮捕权,而不会利于保障犯罪嫌疑人的合法权益。建议立法机关对附条件逮捕制度进行审查,并通过相关程序修改或废止这一制度。     

Suspect Demeanor and Arrest: a Triggered Displacement of Aggression Explanation

The evidence that police arrest suspects who display a disrespectful demeanor is mixed. One explanation for these equivocal results may be triggered displaced aggression theory. This theory suggests persons who are provoked to anger internalize their aggression and unleash it later on someone or something that further agitates them. A sample of officers was primed for either a positive or negative affect, presented with a domestic disturbance vignette, and asked to rate their likelihood of making an arrest. In one vignette version the suspect displayed a hostile demeanor and in the other the suspect’s demeanor was neutral. Officers who were negatively primed and encountered the hostile demeanor suspect were most likely to arrest compared to officer in the other conditions.     

逮捕权运行的实证分析

逮捕权是检察机关的一项重要权力,运用得恰当与否,既关系到打击犯罪的力度,又涉及犯罪嫌疑人的权利,必须慎之又慎。我们通过实证分析的方法,用数据解释了当前逮捕权运用中存在的逮捕率偏高、逮捕人员处轻刑比例偏高、外地人与本地人适用不平衡、未成年人逮捕比例偏高等问题,分析上述问题的深层次原因,并提出通过转变司法观念、完善捕后变更强制措施、利用社区矫正制度等相应方案,解决这些问题。     

The Effects of Suspect Characteristics on Arrest: A Meta-Analysis

PurposeSynthesis research on the correlates of arrest has had a long history of analysis in police decision making research. Yet, much of this line of synthesis research has found mixed results and has been unable to definitively state whether relationships exist between suspect demographic characteristics, race, gender, age, and ethnicity, and arrest. This research attempts to clear this confusion created by previous synthesis attempts particularly.MethodsMeta-analysis was used to generate weighted mean effect sizes of the effect of race, gender, age, and ethnicity on arrest. Effect sizes were weighted using the inverse variance method and random effects modeling was also used. Moderator analyses were also performed.ResultsBlack individuals, males, and Hispanic individuals were significantly more likely to be arrested than white individuals, females, and non-Hispanic individuals. These effects persisted across the majority of moderator categories. Age was not a significant predictor of arrest.ConclusionsThe results here bring some degree of order to a large amount of arrest decision making literature. The findings confirm the results of a previous meta-analysis on race and arrest and also expand upon that research. These results expand “what we know” about the effect of race on arrest.     

ARREST FOR DOMESTIC AND OTHER ASSAULTS*

We use the National Crime Victimization Survey to examine whether a suspect's relationship to an assault victim affects whether the police make an arrest. The results indicate that in cases of minor assaults the police are less likely to make an arrest when the suspect is an intimate partner of the victim than when the suspect is an identifiable stranger. However, the police are not as lenient when the suspect is an intimate partner as they are when the suspect is someone else the victim knows. Intimate partner suspects avoid arrest in part because they are less likely to commit their crimes in front of witnesses. In addition, victims who know the suspect in any way are reluctant to sign complaints, and this reluctance inhibits arrest. Men are less likely than women to sign complaints, particularly when the suspect is a partner.     

逮捕的博弈分析

逮捕是一种并非由司法机关单方意志决定的策略行为。是否适用逮捕取决于司法机关与犯罪嫌疑人双方的博弈。目前逮捕率过高在于逮捕是博弈中犯罪嫌疑人占优条件下的次优选择。监视居住和人保方式的取保候审并非理性的选择。财保取保候审中最小保证金数额是司法机关发现查获嫌疑人妨害诉讼的概率和犯罪嫌疑人妨害诉讼最大可能收益的一个函数。降低逮捕率是可能的。     

逮捕制度改革的两条道路及其反思——以逮捕功能异化现象为立论基点

在我国司法实践中,逮捕的适用已异化为定罪的前奏,逮捕所引发的未决羁押也已异化为刑罚的预支。对此,目前存在着两种不同的改革思路:一种是否定现状,试求回复逮捕作为强制措施本质的"强制措施化"改革模式;另一种是默认现状,试求对逮捕适用程序进行诉讼化改革,以提升逮捕质量的方式减少其功能异化所造成的危害,即"逮捕诉讼化"的改革模式。前者虽在理论上具有毋庸置疑的正当性,但实践中却面临一系列障碍;后者虽颇受立法与司法实践青睐,但该种理念却以默认逮捕实体化为前提,其理论正当性却面临质疑。     

THE PREVENTIVE EFFECTS OF ARREST ON INTIMATE PARTNER VIOLENCE: RESEARCH,POLICY AND THEORY*

Research Summary: This research addresses the limitations of prior analyses and reviews of five experiments testing for the specific deterrent effect of arrest on intimate partner violence by applying to individual level data consistent eligibility criteria, common independent and outcome measures, and appropriate statistical tests. Based on 4,032 cases involving adult males who assaulted their female intimate partners, multivariate regression analyses show consistent but modest reductions in subsequent offenses targeting the original victim that is attributable to arresting the suspect. Although the reductions attributable to arrest are similar across all five studies, other factors, such as the suspect's prior arrest record, are stronger predictors of subsequent offenses. The effect of arrest is also modest compared with the general decline in offenses toward the same victim during the follow‐up period. Policy Implications: These results lend limited support for policies favoring arrest over informal police responses to intimate partner violence. However, the analyses also show that despite police intervention, a minority of suspects repeatedly victimize their partners and that factors other than formal sanctions play larger roles in explaining the cessation or continuation of aggressive behavior between intimates. These findings suggest that new policies replacing or enhancing arrest that target potential repeat offenders might produce larger reductions in intimate partner violence.     

论逮捕与人权保障

由逮捕的特殊性和人权的重要性决定,二者之间是一种辩证的关系：逮捕存在的根本目的是为保障人权,然而却是以限制或剥夺具体人的基本人权为条件的;从对被害人人权和社会制度角度讲,需要而且离不开逮捕,从被告人人权保障角度讲,要控制和慎用逮捕。二者统一于社会的共同道德和法律基础。尊重人权是人道的,正确地适用逮捕同样是人道的。尤其应当注意对被逮捕者权利的保障。