Research On The Mechanism Of Linking Duty Crime Supervision Investigation With Examination And Prosecution

After the reform of the supervisory system,supervisory organs are responsible for the investigation of duty crimes,while procuratorial organs are responsible for the examination and prosecution of cases.However,because supervisory organs have special political characteristics different from judicial organs,relevant provisions of the Criminal Procedure Law cannot be copied when handling the connection from duty crimes investigation to examination and prosecution.Therefore,it is the main task of current supervision system reform to ensure smooth connection between duty crime investigation and examination and prosecution.Since the reform of supervision system,the connection mechanism between duty crime investigation and examination and prosecution has been gradually improved,but there are still some problems to be solved.The problems existing in the connection between lien and criminal coercive measures include unclear subject of state compensation when the criminal responsibility is not investigated after the first detention.If there is a formalization risk of the procuratorial organ’s decision to take coercive measures after the first detention and review,the problem of the transformation of coercive measures after returning to the supplementary investigation and unclear subject of corresponding responsibility is prominent.The procuratorial organs do not have a clear case node for the duty crimes transferred by the supervisory organs,and the existing laws and regulations do not have clear provisions on this.In the process of connecting supervisory evidence and criminal evidence,there is a lack of unified evidence standards.The Supervision Law does not clearly specify whether the procuratorial organ has the right to transfer the synchronized audio and video recordings to the court and present them as prosecution evidence after making a decision to prosecute.As a result,the efficacy of audio and video evidence is not fully played.It is also difficult for prosecutors to apply the exclusion rule of illegal evidence to inspection evidence.The operating mechanism of supplementary investigation and self-investigation is not effective,the relevant provisions are vague,and the prosecution is not very active in self-investigation.The ambiguity of supervisory organs’ responsibility and scope of authority is also prominent in the suggestion of lenient punishment.The author puts forward some suggestions to improve the existing problems.First,the procuratorial organ is determined to be the organ liable for state compensation,and the criminal suspects are guaranteed to have the right to obtain state compensation.Establish a system of exchange of charges in supervision procedures,and clarify the relevant responsible subjects after the return of supplementary investigation;To construct the substantive examination mechanism of procuratorial organs and prevent the risk of formalization of compulsory measures of examination decision.Second,the procuratorial organs make the case of duty crime to start the judicial process as the node,supervisory organs need to unify the handling standards of duty crime cases transferred.Third,establish supervisory evidence standards consistent with criminal trial evidence standards and requirements,unify supervisory evidence and criminal evidence standards,clarify the applicable rules of audio and video evidence,improve the application rate of audio and video evidence.Procuratorial organs and supervisory organs shall apply the same rules for the exclusion of illegal evidence.Fourth,we should strengthen the cooperation and cooperation in the link of return and supplementary investigation.We can build the operation mode of inspection and supplementary investigation,establish the mechanism of tracking intervention and guiding supplementary investigation,and make detailed provisions on the situation of self-investigation.Fifth,it is clear that supervisory organs should decide whether to offer leniency and be responsible for it on the basis of comprehensive consideration of the whole case.They should learn from the practice of leniency system of some judicial organs,and establish incentive mechanism and step sentencing concession mechanism,in which the earlier a confession is made,the more leniency is given.