Investigation Report On The Operational Mechanism Of Continuing The System Of Necessary Review Of Detention

Since January 2013 1, granted revised "Criminal Procedure Law" was promulgated, Article 93 of the Act on "the need to review the continued detention" of this system has been more and more attention to the academic and judicial practice. Among scholars, most of the establishment of this system gave a positive affirmation, and that the reform of criminal justice in our country, once a major attempt to "catch, custodial separation" Legislation. From the judicial practice, due to the lack of a complete system of legislation, on the "necessity of continued detention review" how to carry out this work exist predicament. This paper focuses on the actual data southwest Z District Prosecutor’s Office investigators were analyzed, and the question "review the need for continued detention." Encountered and confusion to sort out, in order to be able to explore a more perfect system of legislation, to further improve our country. "the need for continued detention review " legislative building provide a useful reference.In this paper, in addition to the introduction, conclusion and other parts, is divided into four parts to describe the first part, the current status of legislation. From the legislation point of view, "Criminal Procedure" and "rules of criminal procedure," the necessity for continued detention of censorship made it clear that the existing legal provisions but there are still imperfect aspects, one division stage of the proceedings was incomplete. Only provides sector‐specific investigation and trial stages prosecutors responsible for reviewing the necessity of detention, but does not require the prosecution phase, there is a legal vacuum; Second, the prison department can make suggestions suitability for continued detention, but the proposed target is not clear enough differences in understanding, there is justice. Third, the legal effect of the lack of supervision of rigid security, the need for continued detention review from the power set, merely a right to make recommendations, require highly conscious implementation of the relevant authorities. Fourth, the lack of legal relief mechanisms. The need for continued detention censorship, there is a more complete legislation in terms of start‐up mode, but in the subsequent relief program, but some "anticlimactic" is suspected, the lack of "Eligible applicants’ right to apply for judicial relief.The second part, the basic situation of the Southwest Z District Prosecutor’s introduction. Mainly on the circumstances of the case hospital arrests and detentions carried out a review of the need for data management, summarized and analyzed, from the data, a high rate of hospital arrest cases, 96.7%, the reason, there are bright spots First, the public security organs tremendous impact assessment mechanism, the second is a "bypass" mode to review the impact of the high proportion. Results in arrests continue to carry out the necessity of detention review is also not ideal, accounting for only 0.3% of cases of arrest, detention review the necessity to start hard, change is difficult, mainly due to the "multiple review" so vague difficult to set standard of review review way too subjective, leading to effective supervision and effect is difficult.The third part, remain in custody issues and the need to review the causes of existence. Both from the perspective of doing the prosecution, the prosecution continued detention during the necessity to review the supervisor, but also an athlete, this "dual identity" led to the need for continued detention review hardly effective. The need for continued detention censorship as a new system, the prosecution is still in the "exploratory stage", "dual identity" as well as the role of prosecutors attitude provisions of this system is related to the "eligibility applicant" is worried about, Therefore, participation is not high, more on the sidelines. The current legislation, the need for continued detention to carry out the review scope and modalities are not clear, is to review all the cases after arrest, or only part of the major cases reviewed, the review is written internal or public scrutiny, etc., within the procuratorial organs have a lot of controversy. The need for continued detention start time to review the work of the nodes, such as the review of the law does not specify the period, "Eligible applicants’ ability to reject the application for subsequent litigation relief, in judicial practice, still need to continue to explore and improve. From the reason, although the presumption of guilt ideology in the strict sense has been abandoned, but judicial practice, especially when the measures are applicable arrest, "presumption of guilt" ideology still exists the potential impact. From the perspective of the fight against criminal status quo "investigation centrism" is also still there, still the key investigative activities to review and handle criminal cases dominant. Because China is not enabled for bail, residential surveillance supporting the establishment of a comprehensive monitoring mechanism, the protection from lawsuits, the arrest is still the most effective legal means.The fourth part, the need for continued detention perfect censorship countermeasures and suggestions. The need for continued detention review, the status quo from the legislative point of view, the presence of imperfect legislation, judicial practice, the lack of systematic theoretical guidance and many other difficulties, as prosecutors, you first need to change the judicial philosophy, and establish human rights ideology, ideology presumption of innocence. From the necessity to ensure the continued detention review neutrality, under the current legal framework, without a breakthrough, it should set up a special department to review the necessity of detention within the procuratorial organs, explore open, fair and transparent review of ways to enhance the "eligibility application for people " participation. The need for continued detention review to improve working patterns and related deadlines, and the protection of legal effect, actively coordinating investigation, arrest, trial working mechanism of the three stages of convergence, the need to ensure the continued detention review process effectively.