Research On The Exclusion Rules Of Illegal Evidence In The Investigation Of Duty Crimes

In November 2016,the national supervision system reform took the lead in piloting in Beijing,Shanxi,and Zhejiang provinces and cities.In 2017,the pilot work was orderly promoted nationwide.On March 20,2018,the Supervision Law of the People’s Republic of China(hereinafter referred to as the Supervision Law)was promulgated and implemented,and the handling mode of duty crime cases has undergone a groundbreaking change.The investigation procedure that replaces the investigation procedure of duty crime cases is undoubtedly the focus of the case mode transformation,and the rule of excluding illegal evidence,as a key factor that can affect the direction of the procedure,has also become a problem worth exploring.In this context,in the investigation process of duty crime cases,the rule of excluding illegal evidence has encountered problems that are difficult to effectively operate in practice.Specifically,the following issues have arisen in the entity: firstly,investigators have a unclear understanding of the illegal evidence collection methods regulated by the investigation strategy and illegal evidence exclusion rules,resulting in the confusion of evidence obtained through investigation strategy and illegal behavior,leading to the legalization of illegal evidence;Secondly,the criteria for excluding illegal evidence are relatively abstract,and there is a lack of clear regulations on the extent to which illegal evidence collection behavior will be excluded;Once again,in special circumstances,the exclusion rules for evidence obtained through "drug tree fruit" and illegal technology investigations urgently need to be improved,and the lack of relevant regulations has led to frequent illegal evidence collection activities under "drug tree fruit" and illegal technology investigations;Finally,it is difficult to exclude statements obtained through illegal retention.In the absence of external supervision of retention measures,if there are no special provisions for statements obtained through illegal retention,it will be difficult to exclude such evidence.In addition,there are certain procedural issues with the exclusion rules of illegal evidence.Firstly,there is a lack of guarantee for the initiation process of the exclusion rules of illegal evidence,and the internal departments of supervisory organs lack motivation to initiate the exclusion rules of illegal evidence;Secondly,the lack of clear regulations for lawyer intervention in the investigation process makes it difficult for the investigated person to provide preliminary clues about the illegal evidence collection behavior of the investigators;Finally,there are flaws in the audio and video recording system in the investigation procedure,which makes it difficult for investigators to verify the legitimacy of evidence collection.The above issues have jointly led to the difficulty in practical operation of the rule of excluding illegal evidence in the investigation of duty crimes,which is not conducive to the protection of human rights in the investigation process.Based on the unified requirements of safeguarding human rights and maintaining social fairness and justice in socialist rule of law countries,it is necessary to improve the rules for excluding illegal evidence in the investigation of duty crimes.Specifically,in terms of substantive issues,firstly,a clear distinction should be made between investigation strategies and illegal evidence collection methods.Only by defining the boundary between investigation strategies and illegal evidence collection methods can we effectively prevent investigation strategies from exceeding the boundary and evolving into illegal evidence collection methods,effectively curb the occurrence of illegal evidence collection phenomena,and also effectively prevent illegal evidence collection methods from being mistaken for investigation strategies without being excluded;Secondly,the standards for the exclusion of illegal evidence in the investigation of job-related crimes should be improved.Without specific and detailed standards,it will make it difficult to apply the exclusion rules of illegal evidence,and it will also make the exclusion of evidence too rigid and strict.On the one hand,it is not conducive to protecting the basic rights of the investigated person,and on the other hand,it is not conducive to effectively cracking down on job-related crimes;Once again,it is necessary to improve the exclusionary rules for illegal evidence in special circumstances,and establish sound exclusionary rules for illegal evidence in terms of "fruit of the poisonous tree" and evidence obtained through illegal technical investigations,in order to address the lack of relevant regulations in special circumstances and the excessive discretion in handling illegal evidence;Finally,voluntary standards should be applied to confessions obtained through illegal retention,in order to solve the problem of difficult exclusion of confessions obtained through illegal retention.In terms of procedural issues,firstly,it is necessary to improve the initiation process of the exclusion rule of illegal evidence to ensure the smooth initiation and operation of the exclusion rule of illegal evidence;Secondly,it is necessary to explicitly stipulate that lawyers should intervene in the investigation process to ensure the basic rights that the investigated person should have;Finally,the sound and video recording system during the investigation process should also be improved to curb the illegal evidence collection behavior of investigators,while creating conditions for the evidentiary activities of illegal evidence exclusion rules.