诱惑侦查的是非之争与规则细化

尽管对诱惑侦查的争论从未间歇,但深植其中的实践理性与人权保障的终极目的使之生命力愈发顽强。我国2012年《刑事诉讼法》第151条增设"有关人员隐匿其身份实施侦查"与"控制下交付"等关涉诱惑侦查的具体内容将进一步提升侦查的法治化水准。然而,如此重要且倍受争议的内容却用了及其简略的法律条文,不仅难以消解人们对该制度存在的一贯争议,而且极易导致其实践"失灵"抑或"变异"。鉴于此,有必要从程序操作规范的角度对诱惑侦查的司法适用规则予以补充与细化,力促实现侦查主体法定化、案件范围类型化以及判断标准可控化等,并适时创设"后司法审查制度",以促生该制度理性的最大化实现。

Debates and Refinement of Rules on Application of the Entrapment Investigation

Though the debate on entrapment investigation is ever lasting,its rationale of practice and ulti-mate purpose of human rights protection therein is ongoing popular. The current Chinese Criminal Procedural Law has added provisions in Article 151 that“relevant personnel conceals his identity to implement investiga-tion”and“controlled delivery”related to the entrapment investigation,which has further improved the ruling of law. However,the pertinent provisions are not specific enough,which failed to eliminate the controversies and even led to“malfunction”or“deviation”in practice. Therefore,it is necessary to supplement and refine applicable rules on entrapment investigation from the perspective of procedural and operational norms,and to require the investigating subject to be statutory,the case scope to be categorized and the decision making standard to be controllable. Besides,the“pose-judicial review system”should be properly established to a-chieve the maximized effect of the rationale for this system.