| Falling within the scope of criminal procedure supervision,the censorship of detention necessity was established by the Criminal Procedure Law amended in 2012 and exercised by procuratorates.After more than a decade of implementation and development,the system has played a positive role in supervising the application of coercive measures,reducing the rate of pretrial detention and improving the protection of human rights.However,due to its defects such as unclear review contents,dogmatic review methods,insufficient right of relief,vacant proof rules and barriers to communication,the censorship of detention necessity has been marginalized in grassroots procuratorial organs and fails to leverage its proper function and achieve its legislative purpose.In light of this,this paper probes into the reasons for this awkwardness in the system’s application.First,the functional orientation of the censorship of detention necessity was discussed,including its legislative purpose and the new changes in its operation under the case-handling mode established by the new criminal procedure rules.It should be acknowledged that,after the criminal prosecution department took over the censorship of detention necessity,the legal supervision of detention has essentially covered the whole process of criminal proceedings.Second,focusing on the procuratorate of B District,an empirical study was carried out on changes in the data of censorship of detention necessity cases,the scope of cases to which it applies,the adoption of recommendations made,and the stage of proceedings in which the procedure is initiated in the past five years,to analyze the system’s actual operation in B District’s procuratorate.Third,through analysis of cases and data,deficiencies in the system’s operation were identified.According to research,the censorship of detention necessity has a narrow scope of cases,mainly in terms of the crimes and persons to which it applies.For example,it is rarely applied to outside criminals.Its review is rigid and unclear,and the parties concerned have no relief channels for the outcome of the censorship of detention necessity.Moreover,there are communication barriers between the public security organs,procuratorial organs and people’s courts in running the system.Fourth,based on the results of the empirical study,suggestions and countermeasures were proposed for improvement.Firstly,the review process should be improved to explore and establish a fixed-point mandatory review system and broaden the scope and content of case review.Regarding the mode of case handling,litigation should be used to promote the substantiation of public review,and parties should be given the right of relief,thus enhancing the system’s operation rate.Secondly,the rules of proof should be constructed from two aspects,namely,clarifying the object of proof and clearly placing the burden of proof on the defense in the case of application initiation,so as to form a clearer standard of review.Lastly,a variety of feasible suggestions were put forward to improve the system,including increasing penalties for violations of the law on non-detention coercive measures,refining quantitative assessment of social risks,strengthening follow-up supervision,and establishing fault tolerance and accountability mechanisms,thereby ensuring the system’s sound operation from multiple dimensions. |
