Criminal Avoidance System

The criminal challenge system, which has been treated as the 'the first line of defense' for the judicial justice, originates from the principle of natural justice in ancient Rome. It requires people or agents who have interests or other relations that may influence the justice of the case not to be engaged in the criminal procedure. There're various classifications of this system theoretically.A perfect criminal challenge system will be useful to realize both substantial and procedural justice in the criminal lawsuit, improve efficiency of the criminal procedure, establish judicial authority, and make criminal law enforment officials more capabled.Generally a criminal challenge system is formed by challenge subjects, reasons for challenge, challenge initiation, challenge decision, relieving and law responsibility.The criminal challenge system in China doesn't function desirably for both conceptual reasons and operational reasons. In fact, the key problem lying in the lack of a perfect legislated system .Following efforts should be made to achieve such a system: first,challenge subjects and reasons should be expanded according to factors that may affectjudges' decisions like self-profiting,prejudice, preconception and capacity. We should expand the sphere of interest parties who has close relationship with case-related parties,including schoolmates, battle companions, teacher-students and so on. In the case of legal persons or other organization as parties,reasons for challenge must be prescribed specially.And connotation of 'interest connection' and 'other relations with the case that may influence the justification in dealing with the case'should be understood throughly. A 'quasi-no reason challenge system' should be established that judges be challenged when they're engaged in prejudice to some certain circumstances,or participated in the previous procedures of the case, or be distrusted of by the capacity. Challenge subjects should be expanded to the staff and related agents and departments that deal with criminal enforcement. Secondly,challenge initiation should be improved.Thirdly, a new challenge decision is required. Fourthly, more ways to ask for challenge relieving should be offered. Fifthly, law responsibility system should be improved,includingtheresponsibility after the initiation and before decision, the consequence to the capacity of challenge subjects in participation in the criminal procedure, the leagal effect of the accomplished actions during the criminal procedure by the affirmative challenge subjects, and the responsibility of the initiator whose application is finally out of court, and most importantly, the responsibility of the subjects who fail to obviate when he must do.A revolution on the challenge system for the investigators and the procurators is also necessary in dealing with the problem: firstly, obligations and responsibilities of the investigators and the procurators to challenge voluntarily should be intensified, and these of the decision makers to direct challenge also should be made definite. Secondly, there should be a change in the parties' right from putting in for challenge to asking the court to declare the litigations done by the investigators and procurators who ought to challenge invalid. Thirdly, endow the procuratorial organs right to suggest changing the investigators. Fourthly, during the court trial, the role of procurators should be changed from the challenge subjects to the initiators.