诱惑侦查的正当性研究 = A Study on the Legitimacy of the Temptation Investigation

다국어 초록 (Multilingual Abstract)

Temptation has been detected in ancient times. It is generally believed thattemptation investigation originated before and after the bourgeois revolution incontinental Europe, and then gradually evolved to that in order to crack the case, theinvestigators and their assistants used some profitable behavior as a bait, suggestingor a special investigative means that induces the investigator to commit a criminalact and arrest the tempted person after the criminal act is committed or the criminalresult occurs. The state has enacted laws to give investigative organs the right toinvestigate, to collect evidence, punish crimes, and protect the interests of the people.
Temptation investigation has the incomparable advantages of traditional investigationmethods. The law allows the investigation organs to use temptation investigation todetect such special crimes within certain limits.
The external value of temptation investigation, that is, the benign role of the valueof the tool is obvious: on the one hand, it has economic benefits; on the other hand,it has the high speed and high efficiency of investigation work. However, in intrinsicvalue, its disadvantages are prominent, reflected in the issue of legality. Whether thetemptation investigative behavior has laws to follow, is strictly enforced, and violatesthe human rights are inconsistent, and temptation investigation faces an embarrassingsituation that cannot be used or abused.
The basic concept of the Criminal Procedure Law emphasizes that both punishmentof crime and protection of human rights are equally important. The conflict betweenpunishment and protection of human rights is manifested here as a conflict betweeninvestigation and morality. It is power conflict. In combating crime and maintainingsocial stability, the two are “joining together”; in human rights protection, the two inevitably have conflicts. To make temptation investigations useful, practical, legal,and reasonable, we can only give a dynamic criterion, that is, prohibit excessiverules. First, legislative provisions and judicial practice do not deny the existence anduse of temptation investigation. What we have to master is only the degree. Degreeis the unified scope of quality and quantity, and it is the limit, range and scope ofthe quantity that guarantees its quality.
The degree of temptation to detect existence and use is a matter of legitimacy andrationality. How the investigators use temptation to detect the case within the scopepermitted by law, is the primary consideration of prohibiting the excessive principle.
Second, the use of temptation to detect cannot exceed the minimum that a socialmorality can tolerate. An important reason for the public’s resistance to temptationinvestigation is that their privacy and security will be in an unstable state. This is insharp contrast to the surveillance system. Finally, temptation investigation usually hasa process. Undercover and informants will face many conflicts and temptations, lawsand consciences, and how to enable investigators to control themselves, investigateaccording to law and stick to the moral bottom line in the process of temptationinvestigation.

다국어 초록 (Multilingual Abstract)

诱惑侦查古已有之, 在不同的历史时段里我们都能看见它的影子。普遍认为诱惑侦查作为一种近现代意义的正式侦查手段起源于欧洲大陆资产阶级革命前后, 而后逐步演变成为破获案件, 侦查人员及其协助人员以实施某种有利可图的行为为诱饵,暗示或诱使侦查对象实施犯罪行为, 待犯罪行为实施或犯罪结果发生后拘捕被诱惑者的一种特殊侦查手段或方法。面对当今社会纷繁的不稳定因素以及错综复杂的新型犯罪和隐蔽性犯罪, 国家制定法律赋予侦查机关侦查权以达到收集证据, 惩罚犯罪, 保护广大人民的利益的目的。诱惑侦查作为一种特殊有效的侦查手段, 有传统侦查方法不可比拟的优势, 为维护整体的利益, 法律在一定限度内允许侦查机关为侦破这类特殊犯罪采用诱惑侦查的手段。诱惑侦查的外在价值, 即工具价值方面的良性作用是比较明显的: 一方面具有经济效益, 体现于以最小的经济代价换取最大的侦破案件的成果；另一方面具有侦查工作的高速度、高效率, 以最短的时间完成难度很高的刑事案件的侦破工作。但是从内在价值而言, 它的不良之处也是非常突出的, 主要体现在合法性问题上, 诱惑侦查行为是否有法可依、是否严格执法、是否侵犯了社会大众的人权在理论界莫衷一是, 诱惑侦查面临着不可不用、不可滥用的尴尬局面。刑事诉讼法基本理念强调惩罚犯罪与保障人权并重, 二者之间必须达到一个微妙的平衡点, 惩罚犯罪与保障人权的冲突在此表现为诱惑侦查与道德之间的冲突, 归根到底是一种权力冲突。在打击犯罪和维护社会稳定方面, 二者是 “同心协力”、相辅相成的；在具体人权保障方面, 二者又不可避免的产生冲突。社会道德是不断变化的, 诱惑侦查的标准也会有所发展, 要使诱惑侦查用好、用实、合法、合理, 我们只能给出一条动态的判定标准, 即禁止过分原则。首先, 立法规定和司法实践并不否认诱惑侦查的存在与使用, 我们要掌握的只是一个度的问题。何为度? 度是质和量统一的范畴, 是事物保证其质的量的界限、幅度和范围。诱惑侦查存在和使用的度就是合法性、合理性的问题。侦查人员如何在法律允许的范围内运用诱惑侦查的手段侦破案件, 打击犯罪而不突破法律的界限是禁止过分原则首要考虑的问题。其次, 诱惑侦查其本身的使用不能逾越一个社会道德观念所能容忍的最低限度。社会公众对诱惑侦查强烈抵触的一个重要原因是自身的隐私性、安全性会处于一种不稳定、不确信的状态。这与以监狱为代表的监视制度形成强烈对比,后文会有详细论述。再次, 诱惑侦查通常会有一个过程, 卧底和线人在这期间可能会遇到很多事情, 会面临诸多冲突和诱惑、法律和良知的考验, 如何让侦查人员在诱惑侦查过程中把持自身, 依法侦查, 坚守道德底线。

참고문헌 (Reference)

• 1 马克思, "马克思恩格斯全集 第1卷" 人民出版社 71-, 1987
• 2 刘黎明, "隐匿身份侦查的道德原则" (6) : 2014
• 3 罗斯科, "通过法律的社会控制——法律的任务" 商务印书馆 1984
• 4 马静华, "诱惑侦查价值分析" (4) : 2002
• 5 周晶, "论诱惑侦查的实施原则" (11) : 2002
• 6 金星, "论诱惑侦查" 吉林大学 2004
• 7 吴丹红, "论诱惑侦查" (4) : 2001
• 8 张旭, "解读诱惑侦查" (2) : 2006
• 9 Michel Foucault, "规训与惩罚" 生活⋅读书⋅新知三联书店 2003
• 10 E.Bodenheimer, "法理学—法律哲学与法律方法" 中国政法大学出版 2004
• 11 孙笑侠, "法理学" 中国政法人学出版社 1999
• 12 王政勋, "正当行为论" 法律出版社 2000
• 13 Michel Foucault, "必须保卫社会" 上海人民出版社 2010
• 14 Michel Foucault, "必须保卫社会" 上海人民出版社 2010
• 15 Claude Gudan, "引诱的自然史" 中国人民大学出版社 2009
• 16 李哲, "刑事程序中的诱惑侦查研究" 中国政法大学 2002
• 17 任惠华, "侦查学原理" 法律出版社 134-, 2002
• 18 高正兵, "主流与支流: 对美国侦查陷阱的标准的考察" (7) : 2004
• 19 蔡勇, "“亲亲相隐”与作证.义务" (11) : 2012
• 20 Kenneth M. Lord, "Entrapment and Due Process: Moving Toward A Dual System" 25 : 1998