Perfection Of The Assigned Residence Residential Surveillance System In China

Since our assigned residence residential surveillance system established from the beginning, it has been widely debated from all sides. Compared with the previous two Criminal Procedural Laws in 1979 and 1996, the newly revised law has changed a lot on many aspects, including application conditions, application objects, execution venue, legal supervision, etc. The position has been more clarity and the logic has been more rigorous, so it can be more conducive to regulate and unity in practice. These all show that our criminal coercive measures continue to improve, reflecting that the state law has done a lot to respect and protect human rights. However, there are still many contradictions and problems in the system of our assigned residence residential surveillance, no matter in legislation or in judicial practice, there still have a series of difficulties. For example, some provisions of the legislation are not clear, some criterions are still very vague, the system design is short of fairness, the boundary of the applicable types of cases is dim, the strength of legal supervision is in sufficient and the way can be too general. Combined with the lack of strong disciplinary measures and remedies to violations during the application process of the assigned residence residential surveillance, it can be easy that our assigned residence residential surveillance evolves into covert detention. So, it would not be strange that there so many torturing and illegal evidence during our criminal procedure. Thus, it is particularly important to modify and correct the various shortcomings in our assigned residence residential surveillance.This article can be divided into four parts, on the basis of a brief introduction of our assigned residence residential surveillance and other foreign countries whose system are similar to us, focus on the analysis of the contradictions and problems of the assigned residence residential surveillance system exist in legislation and judicial practice. The third part of this article has analyzed these contradictions and problems in detail, and the forth part echoes to the third, mainly looking for plenty of solutions to the various issues raised in the third. The article provides countermeasures and suggestions to improve the daily work of our public security and judicial office.