The Reconstruction Of The Criminal Prosecution Censor Procedure

"Emphasizing　the　substantiality　while　belittling　the　procedure,　attaching　importance　to　suppression　rather　than　protection"　are　always　the　bug　of　Chinese　legal　system.Although　the　recent　years　have　seen　progress　in　the　status　of　the　procedural　law　and　the　ideology　of　protection　of　human　rights　has　also　been　written　into　the　Constitution,　there　has　failed　to　be　fundamental　changes　in　the　thoughts　of　the　general　public.New　forms　of　　"emphasizing　the　substantiality　while　belittling　the　procedure"　appear　in　recent　judicial　reform.　That's—stressing　the　instrument　of　the　execution　while　ignoring　its　manner;　paying　attention　to　the　outcome　of　the　execution　while　neglecting　its　process,　and　laying　emphasis　merely　on　the　trial　procedure　which　affects　the　verdict　directly　while　taking　no　enough　consideration　of　the　pending　trial　procedure　　　　Along　with　the　increasing　emphasis　on　the　idea　of　just　procedure,　the　pending　trial　criminal　procedure　has　also　acquired　more　attention　from　the　theoretic　and　practical　field.　　The　criminal　prosecution　censor　procedure,　as　both　an　ending　of　the　pending　trial　procedure　and　a　transition　to　the　trial　procedure,　gets　the　due　attention　it　deserves.　The　prosecution　censor　procedure　in　our　China　has　for　a　long　time　remained　in　the　charge　of　the　prosecutorial　organization,　undergoing　the　examination　in　way　of　writing　rather　than　opening　to　the　public　and　requiring　the　direct　participation　of　all　the　relevant　parties　in　the　court.　Nevertheless,　the　increasing　emphasis　on　the　human　rights,　especially　of　the　suspects　and　victims　in　the　criminal　procedure,　and　the　multivariate　trend　of　social　interest　subjects　have　made　it　necessary　to　carry　out　an　urgent　reform　of　the　prosecution　censor　procedure,　which　would　severely　influence　the　interest　of　litigants　though　starting　the　trial　procedure　or　ending　the　whole　litigation.Recognizing　this　problem,　many　scholars　and　judicial　professionals　have　put　forward　several　suggestions　such　as　hearing　system,　prejudicial　system,　civil　inspector　system　and　semi-indict　system.　Undoubtedly,　the　efforts　of　instructing　those　systems　have　provided　fairly　eligible　solutions　to　some　extent.　However,　with　no　perfect　compatibility　with　our　current　criminal　procedural　system,　it　goes　no　easy　way　in　practice.　　Firstly,　the　hearing　system,　originally　an　administrative　legal　system,　receives　reasonable　doubts　as　for　the　eligibility　of　its　application　in　the　criminal　litigation,　with　no　sound　regulation　regarding　the　neutrality　of　the　organizer　of　the　hearing　and　the　extent　of　the　hearing　as　well.Secondly,　the　prejudicial　system,　originally　a　censor　system　in　pending　trial　process　applied　both　in　countries　of　common　law　and　civil　law,　is　based　on　the　separation　of　prejudicial　judge　and　the　trial　judge　from　the　system,　and　also　the　separation　of　the　legislative,　judicial　and　administrative　power　from　the　idea.　Nevertheless,　those　foundations　are　far　from　being　mature　in　our　China.　And　finally,　the　civil　inspector　system,　despite　being　a　practical　creation　of　our　prosecutorial　organization　somewhat　supported　by　the　political　basis　of　people　sovereignty,　still　fails　to　intermingle　smoothly　with　our　Chinese　Constitution　and　Criminal　procedure　law.　Through　inspection　on　the　relevant　factors　of　foreign　censor　systems　such　as　the　nature　of　the　prosecutorial　organization,　the　relationship　between　the　prosecutor　and　the　police,　and　the　procedural　regulation　of　the　censor　system,　along　with　further　summarization　of　reasons　for　the　corresponding　phenomena,　the　writer　here　concludes　that　the　essence　of　the　foreign　censor　system　lies　in　the　non-regulation　of　the　censor　procedure,　the　non-neutrality　of　the　main　body,　and　the　administration　of　the　prosecutorial　organization.　Therefore,　while　it's　reasonable　for　the　foreign　countries　to　carry　out　the　censor　procedure　generally　by　the　court,　things　are　quite　different　here　in　China.　The　current　censor　procedure　in　our　China　takes　the　prosecutorial　organization　as　the　leading　factor,　whose　outcome　imposes　a　direct　impact　on　starting　the　trial　procedure.　As　a　judicial　organ,　the　prosecutorial　organization　serves　to　be　a　judicator　as　well.　However,　its　censor　procedure　still　embodies　the　characteristic　of　non-regulation.　As　a　result,　proper　reference　to　the　foreign　judicial　censor　systems　may　be　of　great　help.　Therefore,　the　writer's　efforts　in　trying　constructing　our　prosecution　censor　procedure,　taking　full　consideration　of　the　practical　situation　while　absorbing　the　reasonable　essence　of　the　foreign　censor　systems,　proves　to　be　of　feasibility,　reasonability　and　constitutionality.　This　essay　goes　in　three　parts　as　follows:　firstly　defining　the　legal　basis　of　the　prosecution　censor　system　and　the　due　idea　basis　of　the　system　construction,　secondly　forwarding　the　existing　problems　at　present　and　finally,　briefly　concluding　the　corresponding　reasons.　Bearing　those　problems　in　mind,　the　writer　makes　careful　reference　to　the　foreign　legal　regulations　and　relevant　suggestions　put　forwarded　by　domestic　scholars,　and　points　out　those　that　are　not　compatible　with　our　practical　situation.　The　scheme　proposed　by　this　essay　takes　the　constitutional　definition　of　the　prosecutorial　organization　as　the　premises,　the　shift　of　its　main　functions　in　various　litigation　phases　as　the　basis,　and　the　establishment　of　its　status　of　judicator　in　the　prosecution　censor　procedure　as　the　final　goal.　　And　finally,　a　series　of　factors　in　the　prosecution　censor　system　and　its　concrete　operation　process　are　elucidated　in　accordance　of　the　aim　of　the　prosecution　censor　procedure　and　its　guarantee　function　for　the　trial　procedure.　Well,　it's　natural　that　the　construction　of　new　systems　may　inevitably　encounter　certain　barriers　in　practice　and　give　rise　to　people's　doubts.　The　writer　would　also　give　full　elucidation　and　resolution　for　those　problems.