Experts said the draft Criminal Procedure may be caused by the proliferation of secret arrest absurd conclusion

[Background]

Chinese People’s Network (www.npc.gov.cn) 8 月 30 日 published the full text of the “Criminal Procedure Law Amendment (Draft ) “to the public for comments, the deadline for comments is September 30, 2011.

the current Criminal Procedure Law

“detention, in addition to not impede the investigation or notice other than the state, should be the reason for detention and the detention , in twenty-four hours, the detained person’s family or his unit. “

draft amendments to the regulations

” detained, A detained person shall be immediately sent to detention in custody, not later than twenty four hours. In addition to not notice or suspicion of endangering national security crimes, terrorist crimes and other serious crimes, notification may hinder the investigation other than the state, should be the reason for detention and the detention in custody within 24 hours after, the detained person’s family. “

since August 30, the draft amendment to the Criminal Procedure Law after the publication online, Internet users participate in the discussion Redu continued to rise, many media have published related reports. It is reported that: “some provisions of the draft or by the ‘secret arrests’ spread.” Code of Criminal Procedure as a learning and research more than ten years of young scholars, I consider this argument, completely distorted the draft amendments to the text and legislative intent, the conclusion is absurd.

stimulate discussion of the draft amendments proposed to the existing provisions of Article 64 of the Criminal Procedure Law to Article 84, the second paragraph to read: “After the detention, detainees should be immediately sent to detention in custody, not later than twenty four hours. In addition to not notice or suspicion of endangering national security crimes, terrorist crimes and other serious crimes, notification may hinder the investigation other than the state, should be the reason for detention and the detention in custody within 24 hours after, the detained person’s family. “Some interpretation is” to inform family members, “there are four or three exceptions,” no notice of the face is too wide, too much randomness. ”

put aside the law, starting from the language, in the context of this argument is a misreading on the first. On “or” in the location analysis, the amendment provisions in fact are two exceptions: First, the case can not be notified; two are suspected of endangering national security, crime, terrorist crimes and other serious crimes, notification may impede investigation of the case. From the perspective of Criminal Procedure, the former is an objective can not be informed, which is in a few specific crimes in order to safeguard the smooth progress of the investigation for the exceptions. Endanger national security crimes, terrorist crimes and other serious crimes involving national security and public safety, the case of major organized, tend to have more co-conspirators and accomplices, early notification will cause the latter part of the secret investigation and evidence gathering affected.

from amending the law to see the history, “detention, in addition to not impede the investigation or notice other than the state, should be the reason for detention and the detention within 24 hours or less, the detained person family or his unit, “this provision is Article 43 of the Criminal Procedure Law in 1979, the provisions of the original, but also the 1996 Code of Criminal Procedure Article 64 of the original amendment, has been in existence for 32 years. The relatively broad statement, in theory, can have any criminal detention for “hinder the investigation” and not inform the family. The amendment to the limited exceptions in both cases, but the specific charges in a small range, in fact, strictly limited the investigation right, but also a rejection of past unreasonable regulations. In any case, this step is to go forward, regardless of pace or small, are progress, not regress.

current law there for 32 years, scholars have been ongoing discussions, and now finally to be “fundamentally changed” the. This time correction difficult to walk for 15 years, the progress of the place is certainly on the inadequacies of the criticism, should adhere to a rigorous and realistic attitude. If for some people speak without understanding, distorted the original intent, resulting in the abuse of this right to limit the terms of the investigation due to lack of support “marking time”, this not help a disservice?

Criminal Procedure Law of the NPC Standing Committee on the draft amendment to the community for advice, which is open legislation, the collective wisdom of a good thing. In the uproar of the discussion, please listen to some of the media and more rational analysis, and more for some professional discussion, not to seize on a topic to attract the eye of wanton speculation, not only confuse mislead the public, but also destroyed its own reputation.

(The author is associate professor of China University of Political Science)

welcome comments I want to comment

microblogging Recommended | today microblogging hot (edit: SN026)