侦查的结构【外文翻译】.doc

1、外文翻译外文STRUCTURALINVESTIGATIONACCORDINGTOTHECONSTITUTIONOFJAPANANDTHEEXISTINGCODEOFCRIMINALPROCEDURE,ANDTHEDETECTIONOFINCREASINGLYPERFECTTHERELEVANTLAWSANDREGULATIONS,INVESTIGATIVEAUTHORITYANDTHESTATUSOFCRIMINALSUSPECTSUNDERGONESIGNIFICANTCHANGESDISCUSSTHESTRUCTUREOFTHESUBJECTINVESTIGATION,ISTOTRYANA

2、LLINCLUSIVEAPPROACHTOTHISCHANGEHASTOPONDERTHEMEANINGDEVELOPEDFROMEXISTINGMETHODOFDETECTINGTHEEARLYEMERGENCEOFTHESTRUCTURE,BUTWEALLKNOW,THISISSUEISCLEARLYDRHIRANOHEPROPOSEDACONCEPTOFINVESTIGATION,INQUISITORIALINVESTIGATIONANDIMPEACHMENTSTYLEVIEWOFCONCEPTINVESTIGATIONINTOTHESOURCEOFDEEPENINGTHEDISCUSS

3、IONPOINTSINACCORDANCEWITHTHESOCALLEDCONCEPTOFINQUISITORIALINVESTIGATION,DETECTIONHASALWAYSBEENSUSPECTINVESTIGATIONAGENCIESINTHEINVESTIGATIONPROCESS,THEREASONCANBETAKENINTHEINVESTIGATIONOFAVARIETYOFENFORCEMENTACTION,THEREASONALSOLIESINTHISBUTINORDERTOPREVENTTHEABUSEOFTHESEACTIONS,THEJUDGECANDETECTBEH

4、AVIORINHIBITIONBYCONTRAST,INACCORDANCEWITHTHECONCEPTOFTHESOCALLEDIMPEACHMENTINVESTIGATION,THEINVESTIGATIONISSEPARATEINVESTIGATIVEAGENCY,ANDHASNOTHINGTODOWITHTHEPREPARATIONOFTHESUSPECTACTIVITIESOFENFORCEMENTACTIONFORTHEFUTUREPRESERVATIONOFTHECOURTFORTHETRIALANDTHEEVIDENCEOFTHEBEHAVIOROFPRISONERSINVES

5、TIGATIVEAGENCIESANDCRIMINALSUSPECTSPEOPLEJUSTCANUSETHERESULTSOFTHEENFORCEMENTACTIONINAWORD,THEFUNDAMENTALDIFFERENCEBETWEENTHETWOISWHETHERTHEINVESTIGATINGAUTHORITIESAFFIRMEDTHESUPERIORITYOFTHESTATUSOFCRIMINALSUSPECTSTHEBACKGROUNDTOMAKESUCHANALYSISISSHARP,THECRIMINALPROCEDURELAWINJAPANSINCETHEMEIJIHIS

6、TORYOFTHEDEVELOPMENTANDTHEEXISTINGLAWMAKINGPROCESSTHROUGHTHETWISTSANDTURNSHOWTOREGULATETHEINVESTIGATIONOFTHEENFORCEMENTACTION,WHICHISAWAREOFTHEMODERNHUMANRIGHTSISSUESOFCOMMONNATIONALCRIMINALJUSTICEISSUESMEIJIPERIODJAPANESELAWMODELASTHEFRENCHLAW,THEJUDGESETAPRETRIALANDPUNISHMENTINPRINCIPLE,MANDATORYP

7、RETRIALJUDGEASSPECIALPRIVILEGES,INANATTEMPTTORESOLVETHEINVESTIGATIONOFVIOLATIONSOFHUMANRIGHTSBUTIFONLYTHECOURTEMPHASIZEDTHATTHECOMPOSITIONOFTHEEXAMININGMAGISTRATEWHOTHISLEVEL,THENTHISDESIGNASTHEFRENCHLAWCANBESAIDTOBEATYPEOFIMPEACHMENTINVESTIGATIONMODELHOWEVER,THEPRETRIALJUDGETOACTIVELYCOLLECTEVIDENC

8、E,INFACT,REPLACETHEFUNCTIONOFINVESTIGATION,SOTHATTHEIMPEACHMENTINVESTIGATIONOFITSCALL,EQUALTOTHEUNIONCALLEDTHEJUDICIALINVESTIGATIONOFMORERELEVANTJAPANSCODEISSTARTEDALONGTHISLINEOFTHOUGHTHOWEVER,AFTERTHEMEIJIPERIOD,INVESTIGATINGAUTHORITIESTHEPOWERGRADUALLYENRICHED,THEREHASBEENREQUESTEDPERMISSIONTOEXP

9、ANDTHEREQUIREMENTSOFTHELAWASARESULT,THEOLDCRIMINALPROCEDURECODEINADDITIONTOTHEORIGINALREDHANDEDSITUATIONS,BUTINCASEOFEMERGENCYSITUATIONS,BUTALSOTHEEXCEPTIONOFTHEINVESTIGATINGAUTHORITIESTOGIVEAPARTOFCOMPULSORYDISPOSALTHEPRETRIALISSTILLRETAINED,SOASTOAVOIDTHECOLLAPSEOFTHESTRUCTUREOFTHEIMPEACHMENTOFTHE

10、INVESTIGATIONHOWEVER,THEPRETRIALJUDGEASTHEINVESTIGATIONCONTINUES,ASDISCUSSEDABOVE,THENATUREOFTHEINVESTIGATIONHASTOACT,INADDITION,ALIENONTHEADMINISTRATIVEENFORCEMENTLAWANDSUMMARYBASEDONTHECRIMECASESOFILLEGALPOLICEDETENTION,THEINVESTIGATINGAUTHORITIESOPENEDTHEINVESTIGATIONOFILLEGALCONVENIENCEDOOR,INTH

11、EOLDCRIMINALPROCEDURECODEDURINGITSINVESTIGATIONOFTHESUBSTANCEHASBEENDEGENERATINGINTOINQUISITORIALINVESTIGATION,BUT,THEREAREMANYVIOLATIONSOFHUMANRIGHTSFACTORSEMERGEDAFTERTHE1935REFORMOFTHEJUDICIALSYSTEMISINTHEFRANKADMISSIONONTHEBASISOFTHEFACTTHATADVOCATETHEABOLITIONOFPRETRIAL,RIGHTSOFENFORCEMENTACTIO

12、NWILLBEHANDEDOVERTOTHEINVESTIGATINGAUTHORITIESTOPUTANENDTOTHEILLEGALINVESTIGATIONITCANBESAIDTHATTHISISBASEDONTHECONCEPTOFHUMANRIGHTSPROTECTIONWHILETRYINGTOIMPROVETHEMOVEMENTOFINQUISITORIALINVESTIGATIONENTROPYOFTHENEWCONSTITUTIONASTHEBIRTHOFTWINSANDTHECURRENTCODEOFCRIMINALPROCEDURE,ONTHESURFACE,ITSEE

13、MSTHATTHEDISCUSSIONWITHTHELEGISLATIONBEFOREWORLDWARIIISNOCONNECTION,IFYOUGOOUTOFTHEEXISTINGLAWESTABLISHEDBYTHECONSTITUTIONOFTHEWRITDOCTRINE,THERIGHTTOSILENCEANDCOUNSELELECTEDPOSITIONSUCHASTOIMPROVETHEAPPEARANCEOFTHESUSPECT,CANBEFOUNDTHEABOLITIONOFPREYEHA,YEHASTRENGTHENTHEINVESTIGATIVEPOWER,BASICALLY

14、FOLLOWEDTHEOLDLAWAGEPOINTOFVIEWCLAIMSSO,THECURRENTMODELISINTHEMAINTENANCEOFLAWINQUISITORIALINVESTIGATIONOFTHEPREMISE,BUTMOREINTHEPREVENTIONOFTHEIRABUSEUNDERTHESOMEEFFORTONITFROMTHEEXISTINGLAWMAKINGPROCESSTODETERMINEIFTHISISFROMTHEINQUISITORIALINVESTIGATIONBASEDONTHECONCEPTOFTHEBILLPROCEEDINGTHROUGHT

15、HEVARIOUSLAWSENACTEDREVISEDTHISCHANGE,INBOTHQUALITYANDINQUANTITYHASREACHEDACONSIDERABLEDEGREE,SOTHATMANYPEOPLEFEELPARTOFTHEEXISTINGLAWTOGIVEUPTHECONCEPTOFINQUISITORIALFORTHISPARTOFTHEVIEWOFTHEIMPEACHMENTOFTHEINVESTIGATIONPROVIDESANEXPLANATIONOFTHEIDEAISTHEBEACONASMENTIONEDEARLIER,THEDETENTIONOFSUSPE

16、CTSARRESTEDINCOMMUNICATIONWITHHISLAWYERMETWITHTHELIBERALIZATIONOFPRINCIPLE,ONTHENEGATIVEOBLIGATIONSFORQUESTIONING,THEJUDGEISSUEDSEIZURE,THENECESSITYOFASEARCHWARRANTTODETERMINEWHENTHERIGHT,ARETHEIMPEACHMENTOFVIEWBASEDDETECTIONOFTHEDETECTIONSTRUCTUREMADEINTHEINTERPRETATIONOFRESULTSNOTONLYINACADEMIA,EV

17、ENFORTHEOPERATIONOFTHEREALSECTORALSOHADAPROFOUNDIMPACTONTHEOTHERHAND,MANYPARTSOFTHEEXISTINGLAW,NORDENYTHEINQUISITORIALINVESTIGATIONFORTHESEPARTS,THEIDEAOFIMPEACHMENTOFINVESTIGATIONLAUNCHEDAPOSITIVEVIEWOFTHELEGISLATIONONFOREXAMPLE,THENEWCRIMINALSUSPECTSONBAILSYSTEM,DETENTIONBEFOREAJUDGEIMMEDIATELYAFT

18、ERTHESYSTEMFORTHECREATIONOFTHESUSPECTCOUNTRIESSUCHELECTIONDEFENDERSYSTEMSO,NODOUBT,ONTHEDETECTIONSTRUCTURE,THEREARESTILLMANYCONTROVERSIESON,BYTHINKINGABOUTTHEREASONSFORTHESEARGUMENTSCANFORESEETHEFUTUREDEVELOPMENTOFCODEOFCRIMINALPROCEDUREDEVELOPMENTOFTHECURRENTJAPANESECONSTITUTIONANDTHECRIMINALPROCED

19、URECODEWASTOSTRENGTHENHUMANRIGHTSPROTECTIONINCRIMINALPROCEEDINGSISCONSISTENTWITHTHECOMMONASPIRATIONOFTHERULINGANDOPPOSITIONFROMTOPTOBOTTOMTHEINVESTIGATIONISAVERYTRAGICSITUATIONANDREALIZETHEREISNOCOPYINFORMATION,NOCONFESSIONSOFFAIRPROCEDURESCANBESAIDOFTHETIMESUNDERTHEINFLUENCEOFTHEUSCONSTITUTIONFORTH

20、ECONSTITUTIONALDEVELOPMENTOFTHEHUMANRIGHTSPROVISIONSOFARTICLE31OFTHEDRAFTLATER,THEIMPERIALPARLIAMENTALMOSTDIDNOTSHOWANYDIFFERENTOPINIONSONALLACCEPTEDTHEDRAFT,WHICHREFLECTSTHEAGREEMENTWASCONSISTENTFROMTOPTOBOTTOMHOWEVER,THESUBSEQUENT50YEARS,USLAWUNDERTHEAUSPICESOFTHEFEDERALSUPREMECOURTHASMADEGREATPRO

21、GRESSTHEMAXPLANCK,MIRANDARIGHTS,LEDBYTWODECISIONSUPPORTSYSTEMFOREVIDENCECOLLECTIONANDINVESTIGATIONOFCRIMINALSUSPECTSWERESTRICTLYREGULATED,TRULYREALIZEDTHEIMPEACHMENTOFTHEINVESTIGATION,ITSCONTENTISTHEINTERPRETATIONOFINTERNATIONALHUMANRIGHTSTREATIESHAVEASUBTLEROLEINTHEUSEOFTHESTARTOFTHEINTERNATIONALCO

22、MMUNITYTOPLAYACERTAINDEGREEOFINFLUENCEINDEED,JAPANANDTHEUNITEDSTATESTHEREARESEVERALFUNDAMENTALDIFFERENCESASALREADYMENTIONED,THEJAPANESECRIMINALJUSTICEISCHARACTERIZEDBYTHESOCALLEDPRECISIONJUSTICEFEATURESAREEMBODIEDINTHEUNITEDSTATESSINCETHEFOUNDINGOFFREEDOM,THEPURSUITOFEQUALITY,ASWELLASACCESSTOPLEABAR

23、GAININGASTHECENTEROFJUSTICECONVICTIONTHESEREASONSAREMIXEDTOGETHER,RESULTINGINTHEJAPANESEAMERICANPREINDICTMENTSIGNIFICANTLYDIFFERENTEXPECTEDFROMTHELONGTERM,ITHINKJAPANISGRADUALLYCLOSETOTHEUSMODEL,THEDIFFERENCEBETWEENTHETWOWOULDBEGRADUALLYREDUCED,BUTNOTFULLCONVERGENCEINTHEFUTURE翻译侦查的结构根据日本国宪法以及现行刑事诉讼法

24、，与侦查相关的法律规定日渐完善，侦查机关的权限以及犯罪嫌疑人的地位发生了显著的变化。讨论侦查的结构这一主题，就是尝试以一种总括性的方式对这种变化所具有的意义进行深入思考。从现行法制定初期就出现了对侦查结构的探讨，但众所周知，明确提出这一问题的还是平野博士。他所提出的一对侦查观，纠问式侦查观与弹劾式侦查观，成为了深化这场讨论的源点。按照所谓的纠问式侦查观，侦查本来就是侦查机关调查犯罪嫌疑人的程序，之所以可以在侦查中采取各种强制处分，其理由也在于此；但为了防止滥用这些处分，法官可以对侦查行为进行抑制。与之相对，按照所谓的弹劾侦查观，侦查是侦查机关单独进行的、与犯罪嫌疑人无关的准备活动，强制处分是为

25、将来法院审判而为的保全犯人以及证据的行为；侦查机关和犯罪嫌疑人只不过是可以利用该强制处分的结果而已。一言概之，两者的根本差异在于是否肯定侦查机关对犯罪嫌疑人的优越地位。提出这样尖锐分析的背景在于，明治以来日本刑事诉讼法发展的历史以及现行法经历了曲折的制定过程。如何规制侦查中的强制处分，这是意识到人权问题的近代各国刑事司法共同的问题。明治初期成为日本法范本的法国法中，设置了预审法官，并将强制处分原则上作为预审法官专门权限，试图以此来解决侦查中的侵犯人权的问题。如果仅仅强调预审法官乃是法院的组成人员这一层面，那么像法国法的这种设计也可以说是一种弹劾式的侦查模式。但是，由于预审法官要积极收集证据，事

26、实上取代了侦查的机能，这样，与其称之为侦查的弹劾化，莫如称之为侦查的司法化更加贴切。日本的治罪法也是沿着这一思路起步的。但是，明治时期以后，侦查机关的力量逐渐得到充实，出现了要求扩法律权限的要求。其结果，旧刑事诉讼法除了原有的现行犯场合外，在紧急案件的场合，也例外性地赋予了侦查机关部分强制处分权。但是，预审仍然被保留下来，从而避免了弹劾性侦查结构的崩溃。但是，预审法官的调查仍然像上面谈到的那样，具有代行侦查的性质，此外，基于行政执行法的留置以及基于违警罪即决例的拘留，为侦查机关的违法侦查大开了方便之门。因此，在旧刑事诉讼法时期，其侦查的实质已变质为纠问式的侦查，而且，不乏侵害人权的因素。193

27、5年前后出现的司法制度革新论正是在坦率地承认这一事实的基础上主张废除预审、将强制处分的权限移交给侦查机关以杜绝违法侦查的。可以说，这是立足于人权保护的观念而试图完善纠问式侦查的动向。作为新宪法的嫡生子而诞生的现行刑事诉讼法，从表面上看，似乎与二战前是立法讨论没有什么联系。但是，如果去出掉现行法中由宪法确立的令状主义、沉默权以及辩护人选任权等改善犯罪嫌疑人地位的外表，可以发现废除预审也好，强化侦查权也好，基本上是沿袭了旧法时代的观点主张。那么，现行法的模式是在维持纠问式侦查的前提下，只不过在防止其滥用上多下了些功夫呢还是从根本上否定了纠问式侦查、实现了侦查机关与犯罪嫌疑人的对等性呢从现行法制定过

28、程来判断的话，这是一部从立足于纠问式侦查观的法案出发，经过多处修改后制定的法律。这一修改，无论在质还是在量上都达到了相当的程度，以至于使人感到现行法的许多部分放弃纠问式侦查的观念。对于这部分，弹劾性侦查观的主张提供了解释论是的航标。前面已经提到的，拘留逮捕中的犯罪嫌疑人与辩护人会见通信的原则性自由化、对接受询问义务的否定、法官签发扣押、搜查令状时对必要性的判断权等，都是以弹劾性侦查观为基础的侦查构造论在解释论上取得的成果。这些成果不仅对于学术界，即使对于实际部门的运作也产生了深远的影响。另一方面，现行法的许多部分也未否定纠问式侦查。对于这些部分，弹劾性侦查观的主张展开了积极的立法论。例如，新设

29、对犯罪嫌疑人的保释制度、拘留后即刻移交法官的制度，为犯罪嫌疑人创设国选辩护人等制度。但这些立法建议至今未被采纳。这样看来，毫无疑问，对侦查构造论还存在着许多争论，通过思考这些争论的理由，可以预见未来刑事诉讼法的发展。制定日本国宪法以及现行刑事诉讼法当时，强化刑事程序中的人权保障是朝野上下一致的共同愿望。在旧法之下，侦查的状况是非常惨烈的，实现没有拷讯、没有逼供的公正程序可以说是时代的要求。针对在美国宪法影响下制定的宪法第31条以后人权规定的草案，帝国议会几乎没有表现出什么不同意见，对草案内容的全部接受，这反映出当时上下一致的合意。但是，其后的50年，美国法在联邦最高法院的主导下有了长足的发展。

30、以马普、米兰达两大判决为首的人权保障体系对证据收集和犯罪嫌疑人调查进行了严格规制，名副其实地实现了侦查的弹劾化。而且，其内容也对国际人权条约的解释运用产生了微妙的作用，开始对国际社会发挥了某种程度上的影响力。其结果，在起诉前的程序中，美国法拉大了与仍然处于第一阶段的日本法之间的差距，也导致了法律家之间的争论。的确，日本和美国之间存在若干基本性的差异。前面已经谈到，日本刑事司法的特征是所谓的精密司法。美国的特征则体现在建国以来对自由、平等的追求，以及以辩诉交易为中心的获得有罪判决的司法技巧。这些原因交杂在一起，导致了日本美国起诉前的明显不同。从长远的预期来看，我认为日本是在逐步近于美国的模式，两者之间的差异会逐渐缩小，但是，今后也不会全面趋同。