诱惑侦查制度探微

发布时间：2018-08-19 09:18

【摘要】： 诱惑侦查作为一种特殊的侦查手段，已为世界上许多国家立法和实践所普遍认可并广泛运用。即便如此，对诱惑侦查的使用一直存有争议，国内外许多学者和实务界人士对其合法性提出质疑。在我国，诱惑侦查手段古已有之，现今用其侦破案件更是司空见惯，然而，我国刑事诉讼法律法规中却缺乏相关的规定，导致实践中的误用、滥用，这与现代法治社会追求公正、保障人权的目标相去甚远。本文拟从诱惑侦查的概念入手，探究其来源、辨析其术语、阐释其分类、挖掘其特点、鉴别其利弊。通过对外国相关立法及实践的介绍了解诱惑侦查制度演进过程中的不同主张及理由，推知该制度的发展趋势；通过对诱惑侦查制度全方位、多维度的分析，揭示其产生和存在的法理学基础，探究在侦查中如何体现公正、秩序和效率的刑事诉讼价值以及如何实现打击犯罪与保障人权的刑事诉讼目的。研究诱惑侦查制度的目的，就是要夯实该制度的理论根基，为我国的刑事诉讼立法提供强有力的理论支撑。全文共分为四大部分。第一部分是诱惑侦查概述。首先，针对理论和实践中对诱惑侦查称谓不一的混乱状况，对相关术语进行了辩析，认为，诱惑侦查（或称诱饵侦查）与警察圈套（或称侦查圈套、侦查陷阱）涵义不同，前者涵盖了后者的内容。在此基础上，对诱惑侦查的概念作了界定：诱惑侦查是指为了侦破某些极具隐蔽性的特殊案件，侦查人员或其协助者，特意设计某种诱发犯罪的情境，或者根据犯罪活动的倾向提供其实施犯罪的条件和机会，待犯罪嫌疑人进行犯罪或自我暴露时当场将其拘捕的一种特殊的侦查手段。其次，诱惑侦查作为历史发展的产物，对该制度的由来作一简要的介绍。再次，为了对诱惑侦查作一个全面的认识，本文按不同的标准对诱惑侦查进行了不同的分类。其中，把诱惑侦查分为机会提供型和犯意诱发型两种类型，此种分类对理论和实践的意义更大。最后，将诱惑侦查与传统侦查方式作了比较看出，诱惑侦查在具有众多优点的同时，也有自身难以克服的弊端。第二部分介绍了诱惑侦查的有关论争及其在各国的实践。正是由于诱惑侦查制度是一把双忍剑，利弊兼有，故对其的褒贬和争论始终伴随着它的发展。主张者强调诱惑侦查是现代社会同犯罪作斗争的客观需要，反对者强调政府只 WP=4 能预防与打击犯罪，而不能制造犯罪，否则有违司法公正。世界各国将诱惑侦查制度广泛运用于司法实践，并通过立法确认其合法性地位，同时也规定了严格的限制性条件，这些都反映了政府在侦查犯罪的必要性与维持个人的法律安全之间寻求平衡的价值选择。诱惑侦查在两大法系国家的发展趋势是：英美法系国家从放任到积极限制；大陆法系国家从否定到有限度的认同。第三部分为诱惑侦查的多维分析。既然世界各国都肯认诱惑侦查的合法性，也就必有其存在的法理学基础。本部分从不同的视角，对诱惑侦查进行全方位的剖析，以便为我国立法确认诱惑侦查制度奠定理论基础。诱惑侦查的价值分析，是将诱惑侦查放在整个刑事诉讼的视野之中，在体现公正、秩序、效率这些价值目标的前提下，更应以公正、秩序作为优先选择。相应地诱惑侦查的目的应体现出公正、秩序优先的价值选择，同时要尽量使控制犯罪与保障人权的诉讼目的达到最大的平衡，以此为标准，机会提供型诱惑侦查的目的具有正当性，，而犯意诱发型诱惑侦查的目的不正当。通过对诱惑侦查合法性问题上的几种观点进行辩析，认为，诱惑侦查有合法与违法之分，不能一概而论，所以，应该确立警察圈套成立的科学标准：即应将主观标准与客观标准综合起来考虑。诱惑侦查的法律后果，主要是指对违法的诱惑侦查，所涉及的人员及获取的有关证据应如何处置的问题。一般说来，对违法诱惑侦查所实施的对象不能定罪或量刑时从轻，但也应具体问题具体分析。对于实施不当诱惑侦查的相关责任人员应当追究相应的民事、行政及刑事责任。对于违法诱惑侦查取得的证据，从保障人权和司法公正的角度来说，应当排除。第四部分着重探讨了在我国确立诱惑侦查制度的立法构想。首先，从为了适应日益多变的犯罪形势出发，分析了我国确认诱惑侦查合法性地位的紧迫性和必要性。其次，在确立和适应诱惑侦查制度时，应坚持平衡原则、权衡原则和法制国家程序原则。平衡原则要求诱惑侦查必须符合适合性原则、必要性原则和相适性原则等三项子原则的要求；权衡原则体现了诱惑侦查中个人利益的适当牺牲去维护国家和社会的根本利益和长远利益；法制国家程序原则要求将诱惑侦查从实体和程序两个方面都纳入法制的轨道。具体到我国诱惑侦查的制度设计，主要包括以下内容：诱惑侦查的主体只能是由法律授权的侦查主体以及他们事先的委托人实施；适用诱惑侦查的多是那些隐蔽性无被害人的案件，可以采用列举方式加以规定；借鉴世界上其他国家的标准，我国必须应以已经 WP=5 有证据证明可能实施犯罪的公民为诱惑侦查的适用对象，侦查机关不得随意进行；诱惑侦查的行为方式应禁止高度诱惑性的手段，只限于提供一种中立性的一般机会；诱惑侦查的程序控制主要包括侦查的审批程序和监督程序，以便对诱惑侦查行为进行有效的监督与制约；诱惑侦查的救济机制主要从辩护的角度
[Abstract]:As a special means of investigation, temptation investigation has been widely recognized and applied in legislation and practice in many countries in the world. Even so, the use of temptation investigation has been controversial, and many scholars and practitioners at home and abroad have questioned its legitimacy. It is common to solve cases, however, the lack of relevant provisions in China's criminal procedure laws and regulations leads to misuse and abuse in practice, which is far from the goal of pursuing justice and safeguarding human rights in a modern society ruled by law. Through the introduction of foreign relevant legislation and practice, we can understand the different propositions and reasons in the evolution of the temptation investigation system, and infer the development trend of the system; through the comprehensive and multi-dimensional analysis of the temptation investigation system, we can reveal the jurisprudential basis of its emergence and existence, and explore how to embody justice and rank in the investigation. The value of order and efficiency in criminal procedure and how to realize the purpose of combating crime and safeguarding human rights are discussed in this paper.
The first part is an overview of the enticement investigation. Firstly, in view of the confusion of the different appellations of the enticement investigation in theory and practice, the relevant terms are analyzed. It is believed that the meaning of the enticement investigation (or bait investigation) is different from that of the police trap (or investigation trap, investigation trap). The former covers the content of the latter. On this basis, the concept of seductive investigation is defined: seductive investigation refers to the investigation of some very concealed special cases, investigators or their assistants, deliberately designed to induce a crime situation, or according to the tendency of criminal activities to provide the conditions and opportunities for the implementation of the crime, waiting for the suspect to commit a crime or self-determination. Secondly, as a product of historical development, the enticement investigation makes a brief introduction to the origin of the system. Thirdly, in order to make a comprehensive understanding of the enticement investigation, this paper classifies the enticement investigation according to different standards. There are two types of temptation investigation, namely, offering investigation and inducing crime intention. This classification is of greater significance to theory and practice. Finally, comparing temptation investigation with traditional investigation, it is found that temptation investigation has many advantages, but also has its own insurmountable disadvantages.
The second part introduces the controversy about the temptation investigation and its practice in various countries.It is precisely because the temptation investigation system is a double-forbearance sword with both advantages and disadvantages that its praise and disparagement are always accompanied by its development.The advocates emphasize that the temptation investigation is the objective need of the modern society to fight against crime and the opponents emphasize that the government should only fight against crime.
WP=4
It is against judicial justice to prevent and crack down on crime, but not to create it. Countries all over the world have widely applied the system of temptation investigation to judicial practice, and confirmed its legitimacy through legislation. At the same time, they have stipulated strict restrictive conditions, which reflect the necessity of government investigating crime and maintain personal legal security. The trend of temptation investigation in the two legal systems is from laissez-faire to active restriction in the Anglo-American law system countries and from negation to limited identification in the civil law system countries.
The third part is the multi-dimensional analysis of the temptation investigation.Since all countries in the world are willing to admit the legality of the temptation investigation,there must be its jurisprudence foundation.This part carries on the omni-directional analysis to the temptation investigation from the different angle of view,in order to lay the theoretical foundation for the legislation confirmation of the temptation investigation system in our country.The value analysis of the temptation investigation is. On the premise of presenting the value objectives of justice, order and efficiency, we should give priority to justice and order. Correspondingly, the purpose of temptation investigation should embody the value choice of justice and order priority, and at the same time, we should try our best to achieve the purpose of controlling crime and protecting human rights. On the basis of this criterion, the purpose of the temptation investigation by providing opportunities is legitimate, while the purpose of the temptation investigation by inducing criminal intent is improper. The legal consequences of temptation investigation mainly refer to the problem of how to deal with the persons involved in the investigation and the relevant evidence obtained. Generally speaking, the object of illegal temptation investigation can not be convicted or sentenced lightly. Specific problems should be analyzed concretely. Persons responsible for the improper enticement investigation should be investigated for civil, administrative and criminal responsibilities. Evidence obtained from illegal enticement investigation should be excluded from the perspective of protecting human rights and judicial justice.
The fourth part focuses on the legislative conception of establishing the system of temptation investigation in China. Firstly, in order to adapt to the ever-changing crime situation, the urgency and necessity of confirming the legitimacy of temptation investigation in China are analyzed. Secondly, when establishing and adapting the system of temptation investigation, we should adhere to the principle of balance, the principle of balance and France. Principle of Home Procedure: Balance Principle requires that enticement investigation must conform to the requirements of the three sub-principles of suitability, necessity and suitability; Balance Principle embodies the appropriate sacrifice of individual interests in enticement investigation to safeguard the fundamental interests and long-term interests of the state and society; Principle of State Procedure in the rule of law requires enticement investigation. The entity and procedure of investigation are both brought into the orbit of the legal system. Specifically, the system design of temptation investigation in our country mainly includes the following contents: the subject of temptation investigation can only be carried out by the investigating subject authorized by law and their principal in advance; the cases which are applicable to temptation investigation are mostly concealed cases without victims, and so on. It should be specified by enumeration, and by reference to the standards of other countries in the world, our country must have
WP=5
If there is evidence that the citizen who may commit a crime is the applicable object of temptation investigation, the investigating organ shall not do so arbitrarily; the behavior of temptation investigation shall prohibit highly tempting means and be limited to providing a neutral general opportunity; the procedural control of temptation investigation mainly includes the procedure of examination and approval and the procedure of supervision so as to facilitate the investigation. Effective supervision and restriction on the temptation investigation; relief mechanism of temptation investigation mainly from the perspective of Defense
【学位授予单位】：中国政法大学
【学位级别】：硕士
【学位授予年份】：2003
【分类号】：D918

【相似文献】