Research On The Necessity Review System Of Detention After Arrest

In past judicial practice in our country,pending custody is often alienated as the vassal of investigation,and even alienation is a means of confessing torture to criminal suspects and defendants.The use of arrest to replace the means of investigation is very serious.The new Criminal Procedure Law establishes a system for the review of the necessity of arrest after arrest,which helps determine the litigation guarantee function of arrest and eliminates its investigation function,thereby shortening the period of detention as much as possible and resolving the problem of serious overdue detention in our country's practice.Compared with the previous "Criminal Procedure Law",Article 73 of the provisions of the people's courts,procuratorial agencies and public security organs if found that the criminal suspect or defendant to take improper measures,it should be promptly withdrawn or changed.This refers to "improper enforcement of measures." Regarding the arrest procedure,it is inappropriate to approve the arrest in the review of the arrest procedure,resulting in the false application of the arrest conditions to the criminal suspect or defendant who does not meet the conditions of arrest.The content of the review is limited to the status at the time of approving the arrest and does not include approval of the arrest.After the custody of the necessary conditions of change,the new Article 93 of the new "Criminal Procedure Law," this new clause fills the deficiencies of China's existing coercive measures.This article provides that the custody and re-examination system after our arrest has taken shape,but the provisions are too general.First,there is a lack of clear time requirements.For example,how often should a review be conducted? Which litigation stages should be reviewed? All these are subject to the discretion of the procuratorate,and it is difficult to ensure that the prosecutors actively exercise their powers.Second,there is a lack of specific operating procedures.The new "Criminal Procedure Law" stipulates the procuratorial agency's obligation for continued examination,but does not provide any specific stipulations for the examination procedure.For example,in terms of the review method,the review is conducted in written form or is conducted through verbal methods.The new “Criminal Procedure Law” does not specify at all.Third,the review opinions put forward by the procuratorial organs lack coercive force.Because according to the new "Criminal Procedure Law",the relevant authorities that receive the notification need only respond to the results in a timely manner.There is no obligation that must be followed,which may lead to the fact that the corrective opinions put forward by the prosecution authorities are difficult to implement in practice.In view of the foregoing,the author has divided the entire article into four parts.The purpose is to continuously improve the system of censorship in our country after the arrest.In the first part,the position of the review system for the necessity of detention after arrest was introduced in detail,including the basic content and theoretical source of the necessity review system for detention after arrest.In the second part,a rational reflection was made on the operation of the necessity review system for arrests after arrest,and the current status of the examination of the necessity of detainment after arrest and the problems arising therefrom were analyzed.The third part introduces the system of the examination of the necessity of detainment after extraterritorial arrest.It mainly describes the system of examination of the necessity of detainment when the common law system represents the country.The civil law system represents the state,detainment necessity review system.What are the effects of these systems on our country?In the fourth part,the author puts forward some ideas under the premise of the above,so that the system can really play its due role in practice.After the arrest of China,the necessity review system for detention will be further improved..The author points out two points.First,procedural regulations should be applied to the problems that are exposed.Second,there is a need to construct relevant measures for the review of the necessity of custody after arrest.