海峽兩岸檢察制度之比較研究—以人權保障為核心

The Comparative Study on Prosecutorial System between Taiwan and Mainland China: Focusing on Protection of Human Rights

陳振義(Chen-I Chen)

指導教授 ： 黃城

國立臺灣師範大學/教育學院/政治學研究所/博士(2012年)

摘要

本研究從理論、法制及實務面探討，首先介紹保障人權思潮之基本內涵及其與檢察制度形成歷史之關聯，並論述檢察職能與人權保障之競合關係，次就兩岸檢察制度在歷史、組織、職權等方面提出比較。再分別就檢察官參與刑事訴訟程序的偵查、公訴、執行三個主要階段，如何兼顧被害人及被追訴人雙方之人權，闡述兩岸檢察官於上開三大階段從事實務操作行使職權時，有關保障人權理念之體現情形及改進之道。並就具體個案，分析兩岸檢察官如何在刑事司法互助過程中，透過職權行使以打擊犯罪並保障人權，最後提出結論、建議與展望。
本文認為，檢察制度創設之初，並非如社會所認知係為「摘奸發伏，打擊犯罪」而來，毋寧是為了節制法官及警察兩種國家權力侵害人民權利而設置。從孕育之初，檢察官制度即帶有保障人權之濃厚色彩，在組織及職權上亦做如此設計。兩岸檢察官無論在國內行使職權，抑或是從事兩岸刑事司法互助時，均應善盡客觀性義務，建立保障被追訴人權利之意識，以求法的貫徹與實現。
在偵查階段，臺灣檢察官應精進之處包括：檢察官發動偵查之門檻應審慎、不宜以關係人身分傳喚被告、應精緻偵辦案件、偵辦過程恪守偵查不公開原則等；大陸檢察官則包括：應積極保障辯護人權益、落實刑事偵查的法律監督、保障緘默權、杜絕刑訊逼供、有效監督強制措施等。至於兩岸刑事司法互助時，兩岸應就管轄權、調查取證、遠距視訊等方面加以改進。
在公訴階段，臺灣檢察官應精進之處包括：建立保障犯罪嫌疑人和被告人權之觀念、勇於提出對被告有利之主張、促使法院集中審理速審速結、及時收受判決審慎提起上訴等；大陸方面則包括：更新刑事審判觀念、落實「存疑不起訴」、法院應調整職權進行主義色彩、保障被告重新鑑定權、確實履行公訴階段法律監督權、審慎行使抗訴權等。至於兩岸刑事司法互助時，應就對質詰問權、證據採信困境等方面加以改善。
裁判執行階段，臺灣檢察官應精進之處包括：保障受羈押人得提起訴訟救濟、律師接見在押被告時不應受無理監視、受刑人服刑期滿應於當日午前釋放、應為受判決人利益聲請再審或非常上訴、限縮死刑執行範圍、以修復式司法代替懲罰性司法等；大陸方面則包括：應建立檢察官指揮執行之制度、杜絕執行過程刑訊逼供情事、提起再審時考量一事不再理原則、修法家強檢察機關對刑罰執行之程序控制權等。至於兩岸刑事司法互助時，應就雙方可罰性原則、罪犯接返問題加以改善，以符合保障人權之要求。

關鍵字

人權 ； 檢察制度 ； 司法互助

並列摘要

This study explore the theoretical, legal and practical perspective, the first introduces the basic content of the protection of human rights thought and its formation history associated with the procuratorial system, and discusses the procuratorial functions and protection of human rights, competition and cooperation on cross-strait procuratorial system in the history of the organization, The terms of reference and other aspects of comparison. Were the prosecutors involved in the criminal procedure investigation, prosecution, the implementation of three main stages, and how to balance both sides of the human rights of victims and prosecution of people on the two sides on the prosecutor in open three stage to engage in practical operation the exercise of his powers, the protection of the concept of human rights reflects the situation and improve the road. And specific cases, the analysis of cross-strait prosecutors in the process of mutual legal assistance, through the exercise of powers to fight crime and protect human rights, Finally, it concludes, suggestions and prospects.
This paper argues that the beginning of the creation of the procuratorial system is not,
as the social cognitive Department for the "rape Abstract hair volts, the fight against crime" from the rather moderate judges and police both state power against the rights of the people and set. Gave birth to the beginning of the prosecutor system with the strong colors of the protection of human rights in the organization , functions and powers to do such a design. Cross-strait prosecutors both at home and exercise the powers or engage in cross-Strait mutual assistance in criminal justice, should fulfill the objectivity of the obligations, set up to protect the prosecution of human rights awareness, implementation and realization of the order method.
Stage in the investigation of crimes, the Prosecutor shall be the sophisticated place in Taiwan include: prosecutors launch investigation of the threshold should be careful to summon the defendant, should be fine Investigating cases, inappropriate to the relationship between the identity of the investigation process to abide by the investigation is not the principle of openness; mainland China prosecutor, include: should actively counsel to protect interests, the implementation of the legal supervision of the criminal investigation, to protect the right of silence, put an end to torture and the effective supervision of coercive measures. As for cross-strait mutual legal assistance, the two sides should respect to jurisdiction, investigation and evidence collection, and remote video to be improved.
Stage in the implementation of the Public Prosecution, the Prosecutor shall be the sophisticated place in Taiwan, including: the establishment of the concept of protection of criminal suspects and defendants rights, the courage to put forward the proposition favorable to the defendant, prompting the court to focus on the trial speedy trial and speed knot, accepting the judgment in a timely manner and prudently decided to appeal; mainland China, including: updating the concept of a criminal trial, the implementation of the Non Prosecution, the court shall adjust the terms of reference 'color, to protect the defendant re-identification of the right to fulfill all its legal supervision over the prosecution phase, to exercise the right to protest. As for cross-strait criminal mutual legal assistance, you should confront the cross-examination the right, evidence of the plight of admissible be improved.
Referee the implementation phase, the Taiwan prosecutor should be the sophisticated place include: protecting detainees may sue relief, lawyers met with the accused in custody should not be unreasonable surveillance, inmates serving a sentence should be release on the same day before noon, shall be subject to the judgment of people benefit claims retrial or extraordinary appeal to narrow the scope of execution, instead of punitive justice, restorative justice; mainland China, including: directing the execution of the Prosecutor should establish a regime to prevent the implementation of the process of torture circumstances, when you consider the retrial bis in idem principle, repair the Legalists strong procuratorial organs on the procedures for control of the execution of punishment. As for the cross-strait mutual legal assistance, the two sides can fine principle, the offender then returned to the problem to be improved to comply with the requirements of the protection of human rights.

並列關鍵字

Human Rights ； Procuratorial System ； Mutual Legal Assistance

參考文獻

〈法官調查義務的範圍—以最高法院101年度第2次刑事庭會議決議為中心學術研討會〉（2012,Feb 17），《台灣法學》，197期，2012年4月，頁82-114。

林鈺雄（1999），《檢察官論》，臺北市：學林。

林錦村（1996），〈論海峽兩岸之刑事司法協助〉，法令月刊，第47卷第12期，頁18-25。

陳志龍（1998），〈法治國檢察官之偵查與檢察制度〉，《台大法學論叢》，第27卷第3期，頁79-124。

陳隆志（2006），《國際人權法文獻選集及解說》，臺北市：前衛出版社。