An Empirical Study On Criminal Case-filing Supervision Of The Procuratorial Organs

As an important part of the legal supervisory functions of the procuratorial organs,the criminal case-filing supervision plays a key role in restricting the power of the investigation organs.This system has been developed for more than 20 years since it was first written in the Criminal Procedure Law in 1996.However,at present,it has several problems both in legislation and in judicial practice.In view of this,the author did an empirical study on the criminal case-filing supervision in the procuratorial organs,based on the cases of the P District of Shanghai from 2014 to 2017.The author is trying to provide some constructive help for the further improvement of the system,by analyzing the problems and giving suggestions.The first part of this article is to discuss the definition of the criminal case-filing supervision and introduce its legislative evolution.In the second part,the author explains the selection of research materials,then,makes a statistical analysis of the research material mentioned above from the general situation of work,the sources of clues,performing of investigative power,and conclusions of the supervision.And the analysis is displayed by means of data,chart and so on.In the third part,the paper focuses on the analysis of the problems existing in the criminal case-filing supervision of the procuratorial organs.On one hand,there are shortcomings in the legislative provisions,including the limited start of the supervision procedure,the unreasonable setting of the supervision function,the simple provision of the investigation power,and the lack of follow-up supervision.On the other hand,it is due to the limitation of the working mechanism in the judicial practice,such as the unimpeded sources of clues,the high standard of "filing a case",and the lack of supervision of the public security organs on illegal administrative sanction instead of criminal penalty.At the end,some suggestions are put forward on two aspects,the legislative improvement and the institutional guarantee in practice.