非法技术侦查证据排除制度的立法完善——兼论监察委员会技术侦查权的界定与运行  

Legislative Perfection of Evidence Exclusion System in Illegal Technical Investigation——On the Definition and Operation of Technical Investigation Power of Supervision Committee

作　　者：武晓艺[1] Wu Xiao-yi(School of Law,Peking University,Beijing 100871,China)

机构地区：[1]北京大学法学院

出　　处：《政法学刊》2019年第5期84-91,共8页Journal of Political Science and Law

基　　金：教育部人文社会科学研究规划基金项目“刑事诉讼法实施问题与对策研究”(15YJA820003)

摘　　要：我国现行非法技术侦查证据排除制度存在法律规定粗疏、判断标准模糊、分权制衡原则缺失等弊端,在实践中将导致界定依据不充分、合法性审查困难、排除难等问题。应当通过对域外法治国家非法技术侦查证据排除制度展开考察和研究,汲取其有益经验。立足于我国制度设计实际和司法实践经验,对我国非法技术侦查证据排除制度的完善应当从厘清标准、扩大排除范围、强化分权制衡理念、确立最后手段原则、强制排除与裁量排除相结合、划定具体可操作的排除范围六个层面展开。监察委员会作为国家新成立的反腐机构,其技术侦查权的界定和运行不够清晰。在尝试从立法层面寻求制度完善的同时,也应对其加以讨论与分析。The current evidence exclusion system in illegal technical investigation in China has some disadvantages, such as careless legal provisions, vague judgment standards, lack of the principle of separation of checks and balance, which will lead to insufficient basis for definition, difficulty in legitimacy review and difficulty in eliminating difficulties in practice. An investigation and study should be carried out on the evidence exclusion system of illegal technical investigation in foreign countries ruled by Law. Based on China’s system of judicial practice, we should clarify the standards, expand the scope of exclusion, strengthen the concept of separation of checks and balances, establish the principle of the last resort, eliminate the combination of exclusion and discretion, and delineate the specific operational exclusions. As a newly established anti-corruption agency, the Supervision Committee’s definition and operation of technical investigation power are not clear enough. The definition and operation of the technical investigation authority of the Committee should also be discussed and analyzed.

关 键 词：非法技术侦查证据 排除制度 监察委员会 技术侦查权 

分 类 号：D918.2[政治法律—法学]