论羁押场所死因调查制度

欠缺具体调查程序等诸多缺陷,有必要借鉴英美法系独立调查模式和大陆法系附属调查模式,完善我国相对独立的调查模式,具体可以从确立检察机关的统一调查权、确立强制调查原则、强化调查手段、增设羁押主体的配合义务、扩大死者家属的参与权、明确调查结论的内容、限定调查结论的效力等多个方面进行改革。

On the System of Investigating the Cause of Death Occurring at the Place of Custody

In recent years ,a series of abnormal death incidents that occurred at the places of custody like detention houses have caused widespread concerns ,among which the″hide-and-seek game″ incident is a typical one .These disputed incidents are not only seriously undermining the credibility of the law enforcement agencies and the steady situation of our country ,but also blocking the progress of the law enforcement activities of custody authorities and hindering the realization of human rights protection .The place of custody has a characteristic of″public authority depriving or restricting citizens, personal freedom .″ Such a feature makes the causes of death occurring at the place of custody dispute-prone . Therefore ,it is necessary to establish an excellent investigating system of the cause of death occurring at the place of custody in order to prevent and solve disputes ,which will improve the situation of law enforcement of the custody authorities and protect the legal rights of people in custody . There are many obvious defects in the existing system of our country .First ,the objects of the cause of death investigation are not integrated .There are no relevant legal provisions on investigating the causes of deaths that occur at other custody places like detention houses managed by administrative organs ,temporary custody places or interrogating rooms set up by investigation organs ,houses of compulsory detoxification and″double-provision″ places of the CPC Discipline Inspection Commission . Second ,the classification of investigation is unscientific .The provisions which classify the causes of death into death from disease and abnormal death ,and accordingly adopt two different methods of investigation ,have huge hidden system loopholes .This classification neglects the legal responsibilities behind the causes of death ,violates the basic logic of incident investigation ,and provides convenience for the subject of custody to avoid responsibility . Third , this system lacks specific procedures of investigation .For instance ,both the provisions on the duty of custody authority and those of the right of the deceased,s relatives are inadequate .Besides ,the investigation measure is too simple ,and the contents and legal effects of the investigation conclusions are ambiguous . From a global perspective ,the systems of investigating the cause of death can be classified into two modes :the independent mode (the coroner system) which exists in the common law system countries and the subsidiary mode in the continental law system countries .The present Chinese system can be regarded as a quasi-independent mode .According to its specific situation ,the Chinese system should be reconstructed by referring to the independent mode of common law system countries so that it will be available to realize not only the impartiality of investigation process , but also the sufficiency and efficiency of investigation measure ,and the reasonability of investigation conclusion .The main contents of the system reconstruction should be as follows :provide the procuratorate with integrated power to investigate the causes of deaths occurring at all custody places;establish the rule of mandatory investigation ,which means ,no matter what the causes of death may be ,all death incidents occurring at custody places must be investigated by the procuratorate;strengthen the measures of investigation;increase the coordinating responsibilities of the custody authority;expand the rights of the deceased,s relatives to participate in the investigation process;make the contents of investigation conclusion definite;and limit the effect of the investigation conclusion .It is especially necessary to point out that the investigation conclusion about the cause of death only has the effect to negate the existence of legal responsibility , but not to affirm or investigate legal responsibility . Therefore , the process of investigating the cause of death must be connected reasonably with other legal responsibility investigating processes .