The Study Of The Criminal Judge's Investigation Power Out Of Court

The right of extrajudicial investigation of criminal judges in China has always been controversial in the academic world because of its special attributes.However,the amendments to the Criminal Procedure Law of our country have not only cancelled it,but have perfected the conditions for its exercise.This shows that its existence still has important practical significance in the current judicial background of our country.The exercise of the right to investigate outside the court is conducive to the judge to find out the facts of the case,to help make up for the lack of the ability of the defense to prove evidence,and to facilitate the development of the court.However,it is undeniable that due to the omissions in the relevant laws,the influence of traditional judicial concepts,and the constraints of material conditions,the judges have a problem of negative attitudes,investigations that are not subject to procedural regulation,and a large number of entrusted prosecutions.By analyzing the connotation and attributes of out-of-court investigation power,this paper sorts out the development process of criminal investigations outside courts in China,and demonstrates the significance of out-of-court investigations under the current judicial background,and summarizes and analyzes the problems existing in its operation.The main body of this article is divided into four chapters.The first chapter mainly introduces the connotation and attributes of criminal judges' out-of-court investigation power.It sorts out the development process of the investigation power of criminal judges outside courts in China,and demonstrates the significance of the existence of investigation power outside court.The exercise of the right to investigate outside the court is conducive to the factual investigation of criminal proceedings,which is conducive to making up for the imbalance between the prosecution and the defense,and is conducive to the realization of the substantive trial.The second chapter draws on and evaluates the relevant provisions of the extraterritorial investigation power of criminal judges outside the country.America and Britain under the adversary mode of litigation,the French and German under the model of authoritarian litigation and the relevant provisions of the Japanese and Italian investigations on out-of-court investigations under the mode of mixed suits,and the reasons for the formation of relevant regulations in each country are analyzed.Its advantages,and find its shortcomings,combined with China's judicial reality,provide reference for China to improve the relevant provisions of the out-of-court investigation.The third chapter introduces the current status of the out-of-court investigation in China,summarizes the problems and analyzes the causes.Through relevant searches and access to relevant scholars' research data,there are currently problems in the out-of-court investigations in China,such as negative attitudes,out-of-court investigations without procedural restrictions,and a large number of commissioned public prosecutions.The reasons for these problems are the omissions in China's relevant legislative provisions on out-of-court investigations and the influence of traditional judicial concepts,as well as some material conditions in reality.The fourth chapter proposes measures to improve the investigation power of criminal judges outside the court.On the one hand,it is unrealistic to ask the law to stipulate all conditions.Therefore,the guiding principle must be established.When there is a situation that is not clearly defined by the law,the out-of-court investigation still has clear guidelines and objectives.Specifically,out-of-court investigations should adhere to the principle of complementarity,the principle of limitation,the principle of participation,and the principle of exhaustion.On the other hand,improve relevant legislation,clearly initiate the status of it,reasonably define the scope of out-of-court investigations,improve the means of it and corresponding procedures,standardize the cross-examination procedures for evidence materials obtained from out-of-court investigations,and improve the improper relief of investigations outside courts.