On The Understanding And Application Of "Automated Investment" In Criminal Law

Identification of surrendered has always been the focus of our country’s criminal law theory,but also a link that every criminal case may involve in judicial practice.As a necessary precondition for the typical surrender,the question of whether the "automatic surrender" will be directly related to whether the criminal suspect has the qualifications of surrendering himself or not,the severity of sentencing,and so on.Because the provisions of criminal law and judicial interpretation in our country still can’t cover all the suspects in the reality,and there are differences in understanding of "automatic surrender" by judicial staff themselves,it is often controversial whether the criminal suspects belong to "automatic surrender",can’t form unified and accurate findings.The situation of "different sentences in the same case" and "different status in the same form of sympathy" has been common in judicial practice.However,the appearance of this status quo is not conducive to the protection of the legitimate rights of criminal suspects and defendants,nor is it conducive to the judiciary to demonstrate its fairness and fairness in the penalty of discretion,but not conducive to the public to establish judicial activities in our country Good faith.In this paper,we use the case of "automatic surrender" in "Criminal Trial Reference" as the research paradigm,and sort out the characteristics and laws revealed in the "automatic surrender" guiding case to clarify exactly what disputes exist when determining the criminal suspects are "automatically surrendered".In the light of the existingtheoretical research of criminal law scholars,this paper makes a research and analysis of the controversial issues and finally concludes the typed conclusions of the standard of "automatic surrender".This article is divided into four chapters.The specific content is divided as follows:The main content of the first chapter is to clarify the reasons for choosing the "automatic case" guideline in the "Criminal Trial Reference" as the template for the article research,as well as to review and summarize the "automatic case" guidance cases over the years and briefly summarize the judicial focus.Firstly,it points out the value and significance of the case of "automatic surrender" for judicial practice,and analyzes why the study of the case law system can further promote the development and progress of judicial practice.Second,the judicial center of gravity demonstrated in the guidance case is mainly divided into the following two aspects: In the first aspect,the judicial practice is paying more attention to the understanding and application of the time limit standard for "automatic surrender",and more and more emphasis is placed on the "interrogation","measures" and other means;the second aspect is that judicial practice pays more attention to the combination of the criminal suspicion and the willingness to surrender.The main content of second chapter is based on the case of "automatic surrender",focusing on the judicial practice of paying attention to the substantive understanding and application of the time limit standard of "automatic surrender".The first section and the second section discuss how judicial practice can substantively understand the "interrogation" and "coercive measures" stipulated in the Interpretation.This paper argues that the criterion of passive filing is more and more inclined to whether judicial suspects should be given reasonable suspicion or actual control when asked by the judiciary on the spot,rather than whether there is no formal"questioning" or "compulsory measure" in the meaning of criminal procedural law ".The third section is the discussion and research on the "suspicious" type of automatic submission.This article holds that when determining whether the perpetrator belongs to the "suspicious" type of automatic filing,it must cooperate with the clues,evidences or criminal facts that the public security organ inquires into or investigates the perpetrator,and clearly whether the perpetrator and specific illegal Criminal activities linked together,mainly divided into two different situations.The fourth section focuses on discussing whether a suspect’s taking the initiative after summoning a non-compulsory measure can be considered as an automatic surrender.This article strictly distinguishes between different types of summons,and demonstrates that summons to the case should not be deemed as automatic surrender and telephone summon to the case should be considered as automatic surrender.Finally,in the fifth section,we discuss the escape of bail and the initiative to bring the case to justice,which can not be considered as automatic surrender.Because the criminal suspects have restricted their personal freedom during the bail pending trial,Initiative and voluntary.The main content of the third chapter is to discuss another judicial center,that is,the judicial practice should pay attention to the combination of acts and willingness to surrender.The first section is still based on the case of "automatic surrender",and sums up the tendency that judicial practice should pay more attention to combining surrendering acts and willingness to surrender to determine the automatic surrender.The second and third sections focus on this judicial center of gravity through the classification of positive and negative not-as-cases.The second section illegally explains why the "ready to surrender" or "surrendering" situation can be regarded as "automatically surrendered".The last two sections demonstrate the negative surrender.The first is that the behavior of pending behavior on the spot is determined as the standard of automatic surrender,and the second is the passive participation of relatives should reflect the willingness to surrender,such as relatives to lead public security organs to arrest suspects should be identified as the case may be,or relatives to provide clues to capture the suspects should not be considered as automatic surrender.The last chapter of this article summarizes the judicial center that "the case of automatic surrender" shows,and vividly presents the typed conclusions of the standard of "automatic surrender" in the form of table form.The situation of a specific,accurate identification of the results.Moreover,from the publication of the "automatic surrender" guiding case and the conclusion of the typed conclusion,we can see that the recognition of "automatic surrender" of our country’s judicial practice will still stick to the trend of tolerance.This is in line with the criminal policy of China’s strict and conciliatory policies.Really protect the rights of suspects and defendants.