公诉权运行的外部监督:论公诉审查程序  

External Supervision of the Operation of Public Prosecution Power:On the Procedure of Public Prosecution Censorship

作　　者：任禹行 REN Yu-xing

机构地区：[1]中国政法大学国家法治与发展研究中心,北京100088

出　　处：《求是学刊》2022年第1期115-129,共15页Seeking Truth

基　　金：北京市社会科学基金重点项目“大数据侦查视野下的公民基本权利保护研究”(20FXA003)。

摘　　要：公诉审查无外乎“诉讼条件是否齐备”和“公诉的提起是否适当”两项关切,我国刑事诉讼制度于1996年之后便无针对后者的实质审查。应否构建实质的公诉审查程序,取决于公诉门槛的高低,二者呈现边际替代率递增的负相关关系。宏观来看,我国公诉门槛呈不断提高的趋势,构建实质公诉审查程序的必要性将不断降低;微观来看,重罪案件对公诉门槛的变化具有相当的韧性,轻罪犯罪圈的扩张则呼唤审前过滤机制稀释国家刑罚权的溢出。在酌定不起诉制度被充分激活之前,可以考虑构建针对轻罪的实质公诉审查程序充当不必要追诉过滤的权宜之计。The censorship of public prosecution is only a matter of“whether the litigation conditions are complete”and“whether the public prosecution is properly instituted”.China’s criminal procedure system has no substantive censorship against the latter since 1996.Whether or not to construct a substantive public prosecution censorship procedure depends on the level of public prosecution threshold,and the two show a negative relationship with increasing marginal substitution.Macroscopically,the threshold of public prosecution in China is increasing,and the necessity of constructing substantive public prosecution censorship will continue to decrease.Microscopically,felony cases have considerable resilience to changes in the threshold of public prosecution,and the expansion of misdemeanor crime circle calls for the filtering mechanism to dilute the overflow of national penalty power before the court.Before the discretionary non-prosecution system is completely activated,we can consider constructing the substantive public prosecution censorship for misdemeanors as an expedient measure for unnecessary prosecution filtering.

关 键 词：公诉审查 公诉门槛 捕诉合一 少捕慎诉慎押 诉讼条件 

分 类 号：D925.2[政治法律—诉讼法学]