对羁押及类似措施的法教义学解读及反思——以人身自由权保护为视角  

Legal Dogmatic Interpretation and Reflection on Custody and Similar Measures:From the Perspective of Personal Freedom Protection

作　　者：施鹏鹏[1] SHI Pengpeng

机构地区：[1]中国政法大学纪检监察学院,北京100088

出　　处：《政治与法律》2023年第11期102-114,共13页Political Science and Law

基　　金：2021年北京社科基金规划项目专项重点项目“域外检察制度现代化研究”(项目编号:21FXA001)的阶段性研究成果。

摘　　要：人身自由不受侵犯是宪法明文规定的基本权利。在刑事诉讼中,人身自由权的保护尤其需要体现在剥夺人身自由的强制措施中。刑事拘留、指定居所、逮捕和羁押均对人身自由权构成了严重的干预,因此应符合宪法正当化事由,主要包括法律保留原则、比例原则和特殊的程序保障机制。指定居所违反了法律保留原则,剥夺人身自由的措施不应交由办案机关自行创设。刑事拘留作为紧急情况下适用的临时性强制措施,剥夺人身自由最长可达37天,显然手段与目的不成比例。逮捕应充分考虑干预手段的严重性以及国家所追求干预目的的重要性和紧迫性。羁押应是调查和起诉刑事犯罪的最后手段。如果采取干预强度较低的措施亦可避免犯罪嫌疑人、被告人逃跑、妨碍司法公正等,则应尽量少捕慎押,这亦符合当下的刑事政策。羁押或类羁押作为“必要之恶”的最后手段,如何谨慎且谦抑地适用,还需要判例形成更细致化的判断标准,以限制个案运用的模糊空间。The inviolability of personal freedom is a fundamental right enshrined in the Constitution of the People’s Republic of China.In the criminal proceedings,the protection of the right of personal freedom is especially reflected in the compulsory measures of depriving personal freedom.Criminal detention,designated residence,arrest and custody constitute serious intervention in the right of personal freedom,so they should be taken on constitutionally justifiable grounds which mainly include the principle of legal reservation,the principle of proportionality and special procedural guarantee mechanism.designated residence violates the principle of legal reservation,and measures of deprivation of personal freedom should not be created by the case-handling authorities themselves.As a temporary compulsory measure in response to emergency situations,criminal detention can deprive personal freedom for up to 37 days,resulting an obvious disproportion between the means and the purpose.As to arrest,full account of the seriousness of the measure of intervention and the importance and urgency of the intervention objectives pursued by the country should be taken and detention should be the last resort to investigate and prosecute criminal offenses.If it is able to prevent suspects or defendants from escaping or obstructing justice and so on by taking low-intensity intervention measures,case-handling authorities should try to reduce arrest and impose custody prudently,which is in line with the current criminal policy.As the last resort of“necessary evil”,custody and similar measures should be applied in prudently and modestly,which requires more detailed determination standards formed by relevant cases to limit the fuzzy space of its application in individual cases.

关 键 词：人身自由权 羁押及类似措施 实体制裁 法律保留原则 比例原则 

分 类 号：D921[政治法律—宪法学与行政法学] D925.2[政治法律—法学]