An Empirical Study On The Measures To Be Investigated

Due to the narrow statutes,the legislators did not distinguish criminal compulsory measures into investigative to-case measures and compulsory pending trial measures.This omission accounted for a chaotic situation of applying criminal compulsory measures in practice.Although the legislators have perfected part of the criminal compulsory measures in the revision of the Criminal Procedure in 2012,the problems in practice are still prominent.This dissertation employs the methods of literature review and empirical research to analyze the investigative to-case.It also defines the concept,content,function and application purpose of investigative to-case in our country,and discusses the differences between the investigative to-case and compulsory pending trial measures.At the same time,through the method of empirical research,it describes the operation of the investigative to-case,reveals the problems in the practice,and puts forward improvement strategies.This dissertation is divided into four parts.The first part briefly introduces the concept and specific content of the investigative to-case.Investigative to-case refers to the measures taken by investigators to restrict or deprive the suspects of their personal freedom by means of coercive means,which is in order to bring them appear before the court and receive relevant investigations,including the interrogation,summon,summon by force,detention and arrest.Then,the dissertation is about sorting out the statutes and literatures of investigative to-case.By doing such a job,we can find out that there are flaws in the above five kinds of investigative to-case measures.Investigative to-case in totally different from compulsory pending trial measures in terms of subjects and applicable procedures,which means investigative to-case has its unique features and applicable purposes.The second part discusses the specific operation of investigative to-case through the empirical research.In practice,oral summons and arrest are common.Summon measures in the actual implementation process bear a certain mandatory,disguised as a "undocumented" detention measures.After the suspect is brought to justice,investigators usually continue the interrogation to extend the detention.When investigators apply detention and arrest,they actually distinguish between "arrest" and "custody" as two different compulsory measures.In addition,in the judicial practice,the main purpose of detention upon the suspects is to facilitate the interrogation of them.The third part summarizes the problems of investigative to-case of China theoretically and practically.In general,the problems in investigative to-case are mainly in the following three aspects: Summon measures in practice bear a certain mandatory;the ignorance of having evidence to bring suspects to court;and the detention time after being brought to case is not sufficient.The fourth part puts forward some improvement measures towards the problems existing in the investigative to-case measures from the view of responsive law.The system of investigative to-case should be established,a system characterized as “undocumented case measures are normal;having evidence to bring suspects to court is exceptional".At the same time,we should strengthen the post-review of investigative to-case.