司法警察為偵查主體之辯正

An argument of whether judicial police should take the leading role in criminal investigation

廖哲儀(Liaw,JerYi)

指導教授 ： 柯耀程

國立中正大學/法學院/法律學系/碩士(2012年)

摘要

依據我國刑事訴訟法及調度司法警察條例相關規定，檢察官作為偵查主體有其法律依據，惟實務上，卻由司法警察完成相當比例案件之大部分偵查程序，而該等事實與法律之落差，是否造成偵查效能之降低、權責不符等負面效果，實務界人士及學者屢次提出批評及修法之建議。
又我國刑事訴訟法於民國91年後大幅修正，降低法院職權調查義務、轉換檢察官舉證責任、落實交互詰問等規定，加重當事人進行主義之色彩，檢察官由單純國家法律守護人角色轉而成為追訴者兼具當事人之角色，此在偵查內部的檢、警互動關係，似漸形成新的任務分配，又因應當今犯罪型態日新月異更趨專業化，司法警察具有專業、人力及設備等偵查上不可取代的優勢，因此偵查犯罪，是否仍為檢察官為完全主導，或改由司法警察主導，如何主導，偵查主體問題，再度浮現。
本文透過文獻、歷史、分析、綜合等研究方式，由法理及偵查實務角度，探究偵查制度之原理及任務分配依據，再比較我國與德、美、日等國之偵查制度差異，並對我國現行偵查體制現況及問題為探討，進而對我國偵查主體究為檢察官或司法警察進行論辯，最終提出結論與建議作為參考。

關鍵字

檢警關係 ； 雙偵查主體 ； 偵查主體 ； 偵查 ； 檢察官 ； 司法警察

並列摘要

In accordance with relevant provisions of Taiwan’s Criminal Procedure Law and the deployment of judicial police, viewing prosecutors as the main player in criminal investigation has its legal basis; however, in practice, many investigation procedures are completed by judicial police. Practitioners and scholars have long criticized and questioned whether such a gap results in deteriorated investigation efficiency, mismatched responsibilities and other negative consequences. And they have also proposed amending the law.
Taiwan’s Criminal Procedure Law has been amended substantially after 2002 to reduce the court’s obligation to investigate, to convert prosecutors’ burden of proof, to implement cross-examination policies, and to emphasize on adversary system. The role of prosecutors has shifted from being legal guardians to prosecutors with the party’s perspective. This new dynamics between prosecutors and police in investigation seems to form the new task assignment gradually. Because crimes are ever-changing and professionalized, judicial police has its great advantages in expertise, personnel capacity, and equipment. Therefore, discussions regarding whether investigation should be led by prosecutors completely, whether investigation should be led by judicial police and how to lead investigation have resurfaced.
With comprehensive literature and history review, analysis, and integration and taking a practical perspective in law and investigation, this paper explores the rationale of the investigation system and task assignment, compares Taiwan’s system with the systems used in Germany, the US, and Japan, discusses the status quo and problems of Taiwan’s investigation system, and argues whether prosecutors or judicial police should take the leading role in investigation. Conclusions and suggestions are provided.

並列關鍵字

prosecutor ； criminal investigation ； judicial police

參考文獻

10.吳景欽，從檢察官強制處分權的逐步廢除探討檢警職權之消長，法令月刊，53卷4期， 2002年4月。

18.陳志龍，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，1998年4月。

23.黃朝義，刑訴修法軌跡之迷思，司法改革雜誌，58期，2005年9月。

34.蔡碧玉，檢警關係實務之研究，法令月刊，第48卷第1期，1997年1月。

4.顧立雄，「調整檢警關係，以提昇警察辦案品質」，財團法人民間司法改革基金會網站http://www.jrf.org.tw/newjrf/RTE/myform_detail.asp?id=1915，1999年2月15日。