Research on the Modern Public Prosecution System

Author: Fan Chongyi / Chen Weidong / Zhong Songzhi (Editor-in-Chief)
Publisher:
Publish Date: 2005-02-01
Features: The legal system of litigation is one of the important contents and symbols of modern rule of law, as well as a crucial guarantee for governing the country according to law. The history of China's legal system has proven that the soundness and perfection of the litigation system directly determine the actual effectiveness of substantive laws: without a corresponding litigation system as its foundation, substantive rights can only be like "flowers in a mirror and moon in water"; without a well-developed litigation system to ensure its implementation, substantive laws will fail to achieve their legislative goals as desired. More importantly, the degree of perfection of the litigation legal system directly reflects and embodies the progress, civilization, democracy, and rule of law of a nation or ethnic group, serving as a marker to distinguish progress from backwardness, democracy from autocracy, and rule of law from rule by decree. In modern rule-of-law states, the litigation system, as a key component of the rule of law, has garnered unprecedented attention. U.S. Supreme Court Justice William Douglas once remarked, "Most of the provisions of the Bill of Rights are procedural in nature, and this fact is not without significance. It is the procedure that distinguishes the rule of law from the rule of men." China's constitutional amendment in 1999 formally established the governance strategy of "governing the country according to law and building a socialist rule-of-law state," proposing new programs and goals for advancing socialist democracy and legal construction, improving the judicial system, and fulfilling these objectives. The initial development of a socialist market economy has nurtured the public's sense of rights and raised higher demands for judicial fairness. Against this backdrop, enriching the realization of citizens' substantive rights through the establishment of new litigation systems and improving existing ones to ensure the fair implementation of substantive laws have become the key to China's rule-of-law development. The construction of the litigation system is closely related to people's understanding and grasp of litigation principles. Litigation principles are the systematic understanding of the laws governing litigation activities, derived from long-term litigation practices and accumulated experience. They play a pivotal role in the construction and operation of the litigation system. Only by correctly understanding and accurately grasping litigation principles can a more comprehensive litigation system be constructed, and litigation activities can be guided toward sound operation. When reforming and improving China's litigation legal system, it is essential to attach importance to and seriously learn from the principles gained through long-term theoretical and practical exploration. Historically, China's litigation legislation and practice were severely influenced by left-leaning ideological trends and legal nihilism, leading to the long-term neglect and marginalization of litigation principles and patterns. One consequence of this is the narrowification of the functions of judicial organs and the litigation system. For example, criminal judicial organs and criminal litigation laws were viewed solely as tools for suppressing enemies and punishing crimes, with their role in restricting state power from abuse and protecting the fundamental human rights of citizens, including suspects and defendants, being overlooked. The superficial and limited understanding of litigation principles and patterns has severely constrained the development of China's litigation legal system and has had a profoundly negative impact on the fair and civilized conduct of litigation. To reverse this situation, a major shift in macro-legal concepts is necessary, along with extensive borrowing and absorption of research findings and valuable practical experiences from rule-of-law countries. Strengthening the study of litigation principles and patterns is crucial. A correct understanding of litigation principles is a prerequisite for the scientific development of litigation legislation. By accurately grasping litigation principles, we can comprehensively understand the functions of judicial organs and make appropriate choices among different litigation models and rules, thereby constructing more scientific and culturally suitable litigation models and rules under the guidance of these principles. Laws formulated in this way will possess greater democracy, civilization, and scientific rigor. Conversely, without a proper grasp of litigation principles, it may be difficult to make correct choices among various legislative options with inherent value conflicts, leading to detours in legislative activities and even heavy costs. A correct understanding of litigation principles also holds significant positive value for judicial activities. Accurately grasping litigation principles can, to some extent, compensate for the shortcomings of legislation. Laws are always abstract. To apply abstract laws to specific cases, scientific concepts must guide the process. A proper understanding of fundamental litigation principles will facilitate the scientific interpretation of legal application issues inherent in judicial activities, thereby addressing the shortcomings of legal texts. In modern society, the gap between the stability of laws and the ever-changing realities can only be reconciled by granting judicial officers discretionary power. Therefore, the understanding of fundamental litigation principles directly determines whether judicial officers, when exercising discretionary power, can make decisions or judgments that meet fair standards. To implement the governance strategy of "governing the country according to law and building a socialist rule-of-law state" and ensure the fair conduct of litigation, it is essential to seriously study litigation principles and grasp litigation patterns. Currently, many scholars in China have begun exploring issues related to litigation principles, such as the legal perspective on litigation, litigation philosophy, litigation objectives, litigation functions, litigation values, and litigation legal relationships, and have achieved certain research results. These have significantly influenced legal concepts and have had a positive impact on legislative and judicial activities. However, overall, the research on litigation principles by China's litigation law scholars still falls short of the demands of legislative and judicial practice, requiring further in-depth study. In particular, existing research is often limited to specific aspects of litigation, lacking a comprehensive and systematic exploration of general litigation principles. Therefore, as China's legal system advances, exploring general litigation principles has become a critical research topic for China's litigation law scholars. The Research Center for Litigation Law at China University of Political Science and Law is a national key academic research institution focused on litigation law. It was one of the six ordinary universities' humanistic and social science key research bases in law approved by the Ministry of Education in October 2000 through expert review. The center employs full-time researchers who are experts and scholars in litigation law from China University of Political Science and Law, while also recruiting renowned domestic and international experts and scholars as part-time researchers. Professor Fan Chongyi (Ph.D. supervisor) serves as the director of the center, Professor Chen Guangzhong (Ph.D. supervisor), a famous legal scholar, as honorary director, Professor Yang Rongxin (Ph.D. supervisor), a renowned expert in civil litigation law, as advisor, and Professor Song Yinghui (Ph.D. supervisor), a distinguished mid-career scholar, as executive deputy director. Part-time deputy directors include Professor Bian Jianlin (Ph.D. supervisor), Professor Chen Guiming (Ph.D. supervisor), Professor Ma Huade (Ph.D. supervisor), and Professor Zhang Shuyi. The center's academic research covers the entire field of litigation law, with four research institutions and directions: the Research Institute of Criminal Litigation Law, the Research Institute of Civil Litigation Law, the Research Institute of Administrative Litigation Law, and the Research Institute of Evidence Law. The reasonable combination of research content, structure, and researchers in the center vividly reflects its distinctive feature of complementary strengths. The center leads its peers in China in overall scientific research levels, participation in major decision-making, research outcomes, talent cultivation, domestic and international academic exchanges, information resources, and involvement in national legislation. In accordance with the requirements of the Ministry of Education, the center is deepening its research system reform, implementing a comprehensive opening-up policy, focusing on high-level talent cultivation, strengthening academic exchanges, guiding and promoting the development of litigation law, and striving to build a first-class, even world-class, key research base. To attract more scholars of litigation law to focus on the study of litigation principles and to ensure that such research has a timely positive impact on legislation, judicial practice, theoretical studies, and other fields, as well as practical judicial work, the center has organized the editing and publication of this large-scale series titled "Series of Litigation Law." The "Series of Litigation Law" is a long-term publication project of the center, open to experts and scholars both domestically and internationally. Monographs and translated works on litigation principles and patterns, with originality, depth, and significance, as well as other works on litigation law that provide guidance for public security and judicial work and reference value for legislative work, are all eligible for inclusion. The public prosecution system is the legal system for pursuing crimes. With the development of social politics, economy, and technology, as well as the mutual integration of legal cultures across countries, the social foundation and value orientation of China's public prosecution system have undergone significant changes. The traditional public prosecution system can no longer meet the needs of social development and the requirements of the post-amendment criminal procedure law, which establishes an adversarial trial system. Fully safeguarding human rights, maintaining fairness and justice, and improving litigation efficiency have become inherent judicial demands. Reforming the traditional public prosecution system, based on summarizing China's practices and learning from successful methods of foreign public prosecution systems, with the value goals of fairness and efficiency, to establish a modern public prosecution system that aligns with the global process of legal system modernization while embodying strong Chinese characteristics, has become an important issue we face. To explore this major judicial reform issue, the Jiaozuo Municipal People's Procuratorate in Henan Province conducted in-depth research on the reform of the public prosecution system. On October 11-12, 2003, the Research Center for Litigation Law at China University of Political Science and Law, the Research Center for Litigation Systems and Judicial Reform at Renmin University of China, and the Jiaozuo Municipal People's Procuratorate jointly hosted the "China·Jiaozuo Academic Symposium on Modern Public Prosecution System" in Jiaozuo, focusing on the reform of the public prosecution system. A total of 130 experts, scholars, and representatives from the procuratorial practice community from across the country engaged in lively discussions and shared profound insights on the concept, connotation, construction, necessity, and related professional public prosecutors, prosecutorial guidance of investigations, sentencing suggestions, evidence presentation, suspended prosecution, and other systems, as well as strengthening procuratorial supervision. The symposium achieved excellent results and was widely praised by both the academic community and the judicial practice community. This book compiles the papers submitted to the symposium and the remarks of attending experts for unified publication. These contents cover all aspects of the modern public prosecution system, with the hope of inspiring those dedicated to the study of the public prosecution system and benefiting future judicial reforms. Due to the urgency of the time and the limitations of our abilities, there may be imperfections in this text, and we welcome criticism and corrections. In conclusion, we express our heartfelt gratitude to all those who contributed to this symposium.