Deeply grasp the role orientation of the public prosecutor as a case quality supervisor
Some prosecutors have blind identification with investigators. First, we don't carefully examine the identification conclusions, inspection records, identification records and other supporting materials in the file materials collected by the investigation department, and think that the technical materials are issued by specialized personnel. We are amateurs and there is no need to spend efforts in this regard. The certificate issued by the investigation department is more authoritative than the defendant's confession and witness testimony, so the above materials become the "inspection-free goods" of the public prosecutor. Second, in the way of thinking, the awareness of censorship is weak. In the identification and analysis of evidence and cases, it is easier to recognize and agree with the views of investigators. Especially when the evidence provided by investigators contradicts the innocent defense of criminal suspects, the evidence provided by investigators is accepted unilaterally. Third, the awareness of supervision is weak. It shows that the criminal suspect's suggestion that the investigation department illegally obtains evidence lacks sufficient attention. We should establish a sense that the public prosecutor is first of all the supervisor who supervises the investigation activities, the inspector and gatekeeper of the case quality, and then the accuser who accuses the crime on behalf of the state. In criminal proceedings, we play a connecting role. First of all, we should give full play to the role of "commitment", that is, avoid bringing cases that do not meet the conditions for prosecution to court. We emphasize cooperation in work attitude, work efficiency and strict control of case quality. However, cooperation does not mean blind credulity, cooperation does not mean that you can lower your work standards, and cooperation cannot be at the expense of misjudged cases. If the transferred case is a wrong case, aren't we going further and further on the wrong road?
Avoid prejudice against the defendant;
Deeply understand that prosecutors have the obligation to be objective and fair.
In the mode of prosecution and defense, the prosecutor, the defender and the defendant are antagonistic, which easily makes the prosecutor biased against the defense. When the defendant recants or excuses, he thinks that the defendant is sophistry and denial, and his guilty attitude is bad. Defenders' defense opinions are always considered to be trying to excuse the defendant. The harm brought by this kind of psychology is that we will fall into a preconceived mindset, consciously or unconsciously infer the criminal suspect's guilt, so that we turn a blind eye to the tenable excuses and defense opinions. It can be said that being headstrong and opinionated is a taboo in handling cases. Reflecting on many unjust, false and misjudged cases, such as She Xianglin case and Sun Zhigang case, in fact, in the stage of public prosecution, both defenders and defendants put forward the opinions of innocent defense. Regrettably, these defense opinions did not attract enough attention from the public prosecutor, which made the review and prosecution a mere formality and failed to avoid the occurrence of unjust, false and wrong cases.
In order to avoid prejudice, prosecutors should deepen their deep understanding of objective and fair obligations. The so-called objective and fair obligation means that the public prosecutor should maintain an objective and fair position in criminal proceedings, take objective facts as the basis, attach importance to the evidence, facts and laws that the criminal suspect constitutes a crime, attach importance to the evidence, facts and laws that are beneficial to the criminal suspect, and be impartial. Especially in China's criminal proceedings, prosecutors are not simply "procuratorial lawyers", but legal supervisors of the country and "legal guardians" who safeguard social fairness and justice. Therefore, the public prosecutor should realize that it is also the proper meaning of the public prosecutor to attach importance to the defense of criminal suspects and defendants, respect the litigation rights of defenders and respect the defense opinions of defenders.
Avoid dependence on judges;
Fully understand the neutrality of judges' intermediate judgment
Some prosecutors rely on judges. In the analysis of the facts, evidence and nature of a case, it is always thought that a judge can easily recognize his own way of thinking and viewpoint. In court, the judge will complete the task of finding out the facts of the case with himself, and the prosecutor will have more right to speak and debate in court. Even if there are some flaws and deficiencies in the process of giving evidence and cross-examination, the judge will forgive them.
There are several reasons for this dependence. First, influenced by the traditional litigation mode, it has always been believed that the public security and procuratorial organs are integrated, and judges and prosecutors are both national judicial staff, and they are "comrades in the same trench" in the struggle against crime. The second is acquaintance psychology. In the long-term work, the two sides are very familiar with each other and even have a good personal relationship. The judge will save face for himself. Third, the sense of self-superiority, that prosecutors should not only accuse crimes, but also perform legal supervision functions, and can supervise court trials, and judges will also look up to themselves. This kind of psychological harm is very great, which will make the public prosecutor careless in his work, lower the working standard and relax the requirements for the quality of the case.
Public prosecutors should realize that although the ultimate goal of public prosecutors and judges is the same, their purpose is to fight crime and protect human rights. However, in the specific litigation pattern, different roles, different division of responsibilities, and different perspectives. In particular, China's current trial mode absorbs and draws lessons from the characteristics of the separation of adversary system, prosecution and trial, and the focus of trial shifts to the public prosecutor, so that the burden of proof for the establishment of the charges is entirely borne by the public prosecutor, and the determination of the facts of the case is mainly based on the defense evidence and debate of both the prosecution and the defense in court. Therefore, in terms of role division, judges should not be partial to any party, but should be in a neutral and detached position. Although the current trial mode in China still retains the characteristics of the ex officio trial mode, such as the provisions of the judge interrogating the defendant, questioning witnesses and investigating and verifying evidence, its purpose is to find out the truth in an all-round way, and it is by no means accused of crimes by public prosecution organs. The evidence investigated and verified by the judge is not necessarily the prosecution evidence, but may also be the defense evidence. Whether our views are adopted by the court can only be based on facts and the law as the criterion. Only by establishing a correct concept can we be more conscientious, strictly control the quality of cases and ensure that the cases prosecuted can stand the test of history.