從制度面論我國檢警關係之現在與未來

Examining the Present and the Future of the Relationship between Police and Prosecutors in Taiwan: From the Institutional Perspective

偵查，為刑事案件之開端，亦為司法警察（官）於執行任務中最重要之一環，其功能在於迅速釐清犯罪事實，但偵查作為的施行，往往會干預國民之基本權，若稍有不慎，即有過度侵犯之虞，因此於法治成熟之先進國家立法例，常見係以設置檢察官作為偵查犯罪之主導者，以有效監控、防止司法警察（官）恣意濫權。而檢警間之關係，依各國立法背景，有採用「警主檢輔」（如美國），亦有採用「檢主警輔」（如德國）者，而日本於二戰後，更發展出「檢警雙主體」；由於我國於清朝時代係學習德國司法制度，故現行刑事訴訟法係以「檢主警輔」為導向。惟兩者於任務角色有著本質功能上之不同，且觀察我國刑事偵查之實際運作，係由司法警察（官）專職蒐證、鑑識等事實領域，而檢察官則職司於證據篩選、公訴庭上之攻防等法律層面，檢警間傾向於互助合作，而非主輔關係，故我國現階段是否仍須囿於「檢主警輔」框架內，容有探討之空間。本文試藉由近期司改會議議題，以各方學者、先進所提之見解為立論基礎，就「檢警專業化」、「微罪處分權」等革新議題進行剖析；最後透過觀察我國法治發展程度、國民對司法警察（官）信賴程度等，結合筆者在實務上之工作經驗，提出現階段改革仍以「檢警專業化」為主要方向作為結論，除期能建立民眾對於司法警察（官）執法信心外，亦使檢警雙方各自能有效發揮犯罪偵查能量，以呼應人權保障、權力分立等法治國憲政體系價值。

Investigation is not only the beginning of a criminal case, but also themost important part for judicial police’s (officer) task performing. Thefunction of investigation is to clarify the facts of crime promptly, but theconducting of an investigation can often intervene the basic rights of citizens,any careless would cause the doubt of excessive intervention. And that’s whywe can generally see that in the legislation of countries that full govrenmentedby the law assign prosecutors as the leaders of cirime investigation, in orderto monitor and prevent judicial police (officer) from the blatant abuse ofauthority. According to the legislative background of each country, therelationship between the police and prosecutors are different. Like the USAadopts the pattern as“police-dominated investigation”or like Germany adoptsthe pattern as“prosecutor-dominated investigation”. For Japan even developeda new pattern as “dual-principality of police and prosecutor ”after WorldWar II. Since our country learned the German-typed judicial system in theperiod of The Qing Dynasty, The Code of Criminal Procedure now is“prosecutor-dominated investigation”oriented in force.
But for their task roles, they are essentially and functionally different.Observe the practical operation in our country’s criminal investigation, whichthe judicial police (officer) specializes in the factual fields like collectingevidence, forensic science, etc. And the prosecutors specialize in the juridicalfields like filtering evidence, attacking and defending in the public prosecutioncourt,etc.The relationship between prosecutors and police tends to cooperation,rather than domination. So there are rooms for discussion that whether ourcountry still needs to trap in the frame of“prosecutor-dominated investigation”for now.
This article tries to analyze the reform issues such as'the specializationof police and prosecutors 'and 'the disposition of micro crime '.This analyzingwas based on the opinion proposed by many scholars and esteemed colleagues.And at last through the observation of the development of rule of law inTaiwan, the reliance toward the judicial police (officer) from public, combinedwith the author's practical experience can bring out the conclusion that thisstage of the Judicial reform is still 'the specialization of police and procurator'as the main direction. It not only establish the Law enforcement confidencetoward the judicial police (officer) from public, but also makes the policeand prosecutors to investigate the crime more effectively and respectively.Most of all, it corresponds to the constitutional value of Rechtsstaat such asHuman rights protection and Separation of powers.