從制度面論我國檢警關係之現在與未來

Examining the Present and the Future of the Relationship between Police and Prosecutors in Taiwan: From the Institutional Perspective

詹永茂(Chan, Yung-Mao)

《軍法專刊》 64卷1期 (2018/02) Pp. 85-100

摘要

偵查，為刑事案件之開端，亦為司法警察（官）於執行任務中最重要之一環，其功能在於迅速釐清犯罪事實，但偵查作為的施行，往往會干預國民之基本權，若稍有不慎，即有過度侵犯之虞，因此於法治成熟之先進國家立法例，常見係以設置檢察官作為偵查犯罪之主導者，以有效監控、防止司法警察（官）恣意濫權。而檢警間之關係，依各國立法背景，有採用「警主檢輔」（如美國），亦有採用「檢主警輔」（如德國）者，而日本於二戰後，更發展出「檢警雙主體」；由於我國於清朝時代係學習德國司法制度，故現行刑事訴訟法係以「檢主警輔」為導向。惟兩者於任務角色有著本質功能上之不同，且觀察我國刑事偵查之實際運作，係由司法警察（官）專職蒐證、鑑識等事實領域，而檢察官則職司於證據篩選、公訴庭上之攻防等法律層面，檢警間傾向於互助合作，而非主輔關係，故我國現階段是否仍須囿於「檢主警輔」框架內，容有探討之空間。本文試藉由近期司改會議議題，以各方學者、先進所提之見解為立論基礎，就「檢警專業化」、「微罪處分權」等革新議題進行剖析；最後透過觀察我國法治發展程度、國民對司法警察（官）信賴程度等，結合筆者在實務上之工作經驗，提出現階段改革仍以「檢警專業化」為主要方向作為結論，除期能建立民眾對於司法警察（官）執法信心外，亦使檢警雙方各自能有效發揮犯罪偵查能量，以呼應人權保障、權力分立等法治國憲政體系價值。

關鍵字

檢警關係 ； 警主檢輔 ； 檢主警輔 ； 檢警雙主體 ； 檢警專業化 ； 微罪處分權 ； 司法警察

並列摘要

Investigation is not only the beginning of a criminal case, but also the most important part for judicial police's (officer) task performing. The function of investigation is to clarify the facts of crime promptly, but the conducting of an investigation can often intervene the basic rights of citizens, any careless would cause the doubt of excessive intervention. And that's why we can generally see that in the legislation of countries that full govrenmented by the law assign prosecutors as the leaders of cirime investigation, in order to monitor and prevent judicial police (officer) from the blatant abuse of authority. According to the legislative background of each country, the relationship between the police and prosecutors are different. Like the USA adopts the pattern as ＂police-dominated investigation＂ or like Germany adopts the pattern as ＂prosecutor-dominated investigation＂. For Japan even developed a new pattern as ＂dual-principality of police and prosecutor＂ after World War II. Since our country learned the German-typed judicial system in the period of The Qing Dynasty, The Code of Criminal Procedure now is ＂prosecutor-dominated investigation＂ oriented in force. But for their task roles, they are essentially and functionally different. Observe the practical operation in our country's criminal investigation, which the judicial police (officer) specializes in the factual fields like collecting evidence, forensic science, etc. And the prosecutors specialize in the juridical fields like filtering evidence, attacking and defending in the public prosecution court, etc. The relationship between prosecutors and police tends to cooperation, rather than domination. So there are rooms for discussion that whether our country still needs to trap in the frame of ＂prosecutor-dominated investigation＂ for now. This article tries to analyze the reform issues such as ＂the specialization of police and prosecutors＂ and ＂the disposition of micro crime＂. This analyzing was based on the opinion proposed by many scholars and esteemed colleagues. And at last through the observation of the development of rule of law in Taiwan, the reliance toward the judicial police (officer) from public, combined with the author's practical experience can bring out the conclusion that this stage of the Judicial reform is still ＂the specialization of police and procurator＂ as the main direction. It not only establish the Law enforcement confidence toward the judicial police (officer) from public, but also makes the police and prosecutors to investigate the crime more effectively and respectively. Most of all, it corresponds to the constitutional value of Rechtsstaat such as Human rights protection and Separation of powers.

並列關鍵字

Prosecutors-police Relationship ； Police-dominated Investigation ； Prosecutor-dominated Investigation ； Dual-principality of Police and Prosecutor ； The Specialization of Police and Procurator ； The Disposition of Micro Crime ； Judicial Police

參考文獻

林鈺雄，〈改革偵查程序之新視野─從歐洲法趨勢看我國法走向〉，《月旦法學雜誌》，2008年6月，第157期，頁204。

總統府司法改革國是會議網站https://justice.president.gov.tw/newinfo/16。到訪日期2017 年9 月1日。

許福生，〈警政變遷與犯罪預防〉，《犯罪學與犯罪預防》，元照出版有限公司，2016年2月，頁307。

維基百科網站https://zh.wikipedia.org/wiki/%E4%B8%AD%E8%8F%AF%E6%B0%91%E5%9C%8B%E8%AD%A6%E5%AF%9F。到訪日期2017 年9 月1 日。

鍾鳳玲，〈從檢察制度的歷史與比較論我國檢察官之定位與保障〉，國立政治大學法律學研究所博士論文，2008 年7月，頁50-58。