[Chinese keywords] Integrated execution of criminal punishment; investigative agencies; property punishment; prisons [Abstract] Building a unified execution system for criminal punishment can not only solve the accumulated problems brought about by the current decentralized execu

[Chinese keywords] Integrated execution of punishment; investigative agencies; property punishment; prison

[ Abstract] To build a unified execution system for punishment, can not only solve the accumulated problems brought about by the current decentralized execution system , but also the top-level design of the Central Committee of the Communist Party of China for the reform of the judicial system . The primary problem facing the unified execution system of criminal punishment is the unified execution subjects of . The diversified and decentralized current criminal punishment execution subjects need to be uniformly sorted out and integrated. The determination of the unified execution subject of criminal punishment is a legal issue and a constitutional issue. must solve the problem of positioning the power attribute of the punishment execution right in order to accurately assign the punishment execution right to specific state organs. From the perspective of the Constitution and administrative law, the right to execute the criminal punishment is the judicial administrative power in the administrative power. It is an administrative power with both judicial characteristics. The unified execution of the criminal punishment is uniformly granted the judicial administrative organs constitutional rationality. To complete the task of integrating criminal execution, two problems must be solved: , one is the concurrent transformation and reorganization of the execution agency, ; , and the other is the sorting and reorganization of the execution power . The solution to these two problems can be summarized as: two transfers, two stripping and seven reorganizations. The integrated reform of criminal execution will bring about law enforcement risks such as the reduction in case-solving rate of public security organs, the increasing difficulty of property-related prisoners, and the increase in the number of prisoners. Facing risks and responding calmly is not only the right choice for the integrated reform of criminal execution, but also the only way for judicial system reform.

[Full text]

The "Decision of the Central Committee of the Communist Party of China on Several Major Issues Concerning Comprehensively Promoting the Rule of Law" adopted by the Fourth Plenary Session of the 18th Central Committee of the Communist Party of China on October 23, 2014 put forward the requirement of "Improve the criminal execution system and unify the criminal execution system" . Under the guidance of this top-level plan, the academic community held a heated discussion on the issue of a unified penalty execution system. The various shortcomings of the decentralized execution system were once again focused, and the unified penalty execution system was expected and expected like never before. To this day, it has become a consensus in the academic community to build a unified system of execution of punishment. Based on this, this article will no longer focus on demonstrating the necessity or significance of the establishment of a unified execution system for criminal punishment, but will focus on the basic premise of the unified execution system of criminal punishment, that is, how to build a unified execution subject.

1. Power attributes of the right to execute the punishment

The determination of the unified execution subject of the punishment is a legal issue and a constitutional issue. Therefore, only by accurately defining the origin of the power of the right to execute the punishment can we effectively integrate the subject of the punishment and achieve the integration of the execution of the punishment.

According to relevant provisions of the Constitution of our country, my country's state power includes four powers: national legislative power, state administrative power, state judicial power, and state procuratorial power. As the last link of criminal justice, the execution of criminal punishment will certainly have a natural correlation with judicial power , but from the perspective of the essential attributes of power, criminal punishment is not the judicial power , because its authority content is not handled by law, and it does not have the characteristics of judicial power, neutrality, and passiveness. At the same time, the right to execute the punishment obviously does not belong to any of the legislative power, judicial power, or procuratorial power. Then, The right to execute the punishment should logically belong to the administrative power and belong to the judicial administrative power in the administrative power.

First of all, the right to execute the punishment is an administrative power.

The academic community has slightly different understandings about the definition of administrative power. There is a view believes that in the modern sense, administrative power refers to the power of state administrative organs to implement national laws, policies and manage state internal and foreign affairs. also has a view believes that administrative power is the power of state administrative organs to implement legal norms and implement management activities. There are also opinions defines administrative power as the power of state administrative organs to execute laws and manage state administrative affairs, and is an integral part of state power.

According to the general theory of administrative power, administrative power is granted or recognized by the national constitution and laws. The power of state administrative organs to implement legal norms and implement administrative management activities over public affairs is an integral part of the state's power and social governance power. Overall, the essential attribute of administrative power is executive power, including law enforcement power, public management power and public service power. Compared with judicial power, administrative power has obvious ten characteristics, including initiative, tendency, substantiveness, adaptability, transducibility, subject administrative nature, first qualitativeness, dominance, hierarchy, and efficiency priority.

The right to execute the punishment is to achieve the purpose of enforcing the law (legal documents) through the deprivation of rights. Therefore, its is essentially a kind of law enforcement power , that is, administrative power , and its manifestation is a specific administrative act based on the execution of the effective judgment of the court. The execution of the punishment is clearly proactive in the initiation of punishment, and the deprivation of the rights of the prisoners also shows obvious substantive intervention. At the same time, the execution subject of the punishment occupies an absolute dominance in the execution, which also shows that the execution right of the punishment is an administrative power .

Secondly, the right to execute a criminal punishment is a judicial executive power.

Judicial administration is an administrative power that mainly manages judicial administrative affairs in the state power system, is compatible with the nature of some judicial powers, and is complex, relatively independent, broad, enforceable and service-oriented. There is a clear difference between Judicial executive power and in the general sense of administrative power . In the general sense, administrative power only has a simple industry administrative affairs management function. In addition to exercising general administrative affairs management functions, judicial administrative power also exercises special judicial functions of preventing crimes, punishing crimes and transforming criminals that are not available to general administrative agencies. At the same time, the object of judicial administrative management is judicial administrative affairs rather than general administrative affairs. Therefore, judicial administrative power is an administrative power with both judicial power, and its essence is an administrative power.

The right to execute the punishment belongs to the judicial administrative power , because its execution is based on the effective judgment of the court, and the object of execution is the prisoners who violate the criminal law, reflecting the distinctive execution rights of judicial affairs. At the same time, in the execution of criminal punishments, changes in the execution methods of criminal punishments such as commutation of sentence, parole, and temporary release from prison are also a kind of infiltration and integration of administrative power by judicial power, reflecting certain characteristics of judicial power, thus distinguishing the execution of criminal punishments from the general administrative power, and is the judicial administrative power in administrative power.

The right to execute the punishment belongs to the judicial administrative organs, which is not only legitimate in terms of power attributes, but also feasible in terms of the current responsibilities of the judicial administrative organs. Some of the current types of punishments deprivation of liberty ( such as life imprisonment, fixed-term imprisonment) and restricted liberty (such as community correction) have been executed by judicial administrative agencies, so it will take over life imprisonment (html l3 death penalty is executed immediately), qualification penalty (deprived of political rights, deportation), property penalty (fine, confiscation of property), and detention in the free punishment, and the execution of detention in the free punishment is very feasible. Because although there are many types of punishments, there are the most basic rules to follow in execution, such as the connection between trial and execution, the principles and standards followed by execution, and the handling of legal issues during execution. Since prisons, juvenile offenders discipline offices and community correction agencies have accumulated rich execution experience as specialized criminal execution agencies, they will have rules to follow and documented when taking over the execution of detention, death penalty, and property punishment.On the contrary, the public security's execution of detention and deprivation of political rights, and the court's execution of death and property punishment are all their accompanying work responsibilities. Due to limited energy, it is difficult to do its best, resulting in a huge reduction in the execution effect. At the same time, this accompanying execution theoretically violates the basic principles of separation of powers. So in general, is uniformly exercised by judicial administrative agencies for all execution rights, which meets the basic attributes of the execution rights of the punishment and is also highly feasible.

2. Basic steps to integrate punishment execution

Foreign countries have basically adopted the unified model of in the criminal execution system. Except for Germany and Japan that are subject to execution of penalties by procuratorates, most countries have unified management and full responsibility for the execution of penalties by a department of the Ministry of Justice (Ministry of Justice or Ministry of Justice). When establishing an executive body, most countries fully consider the implementation behavior and judgment behavior during execution. Without exception, separates the execution behavior from the court's power structure and hand it over to specialized institutions or comprehensive institutions independent of the court for exercise. The unified criminal execution system can not only guarantee the authority of judicial judgments and the unity of the national rule of law, effectively execute judgments, but also ensure the consistency of the standards for the punishment execution targets and maintain the fairness of the execution of criminal punishments.

In the current context of the rule of law in China, the task of integrating criminal execution is completed. needs to solve two problems : First, the translation and reorganization of the execution agency , , and the other is the sorting and reorganization of the execution power . The solution paths to these two problems can be summarized as: "two transfers", "two stripping", "seven reorganizations" . "Two transfers" refer to the detention center and judicial police agency transfer to to judicial administrative agency ; "two strips" refer to the execution of deprivation of political rights and deportation from the public security agency to judicial police agency; the "seven reorganizations" redistribute the powers marked in the figures in Figure 1.

(One)Two transfers

1. The issue of transferring the detention center from the public security organ to the judicial administrative organ

detention center has received widespread attention in recent years. Most of the views agree that detention centers should be transferred to judicial administrative organs as a whole. There are roughly four reasons for approval. First, the current behaviors or functions of the detention center, such as torture, prison investigation, and deep digging for crimes, have caused some unjust, false and wrong cases, and affects the credibility of judicial . The special personnel who occurred in the detention center created unjust and false cases, underground transactions of criminal information, and abnormal casualties. In the final analysis, the detention center bears the consequences of the functions of pending detention and criminal investigation. In the case of carrying out criminal investigation functions, the detention center cannot be basically neutral and transcendent, nor can it just act as a detention and protector of the pending criminals. Instead, it must obtain confessions, information or intelligence of the pending criminals through various means in order to maximize the effect of criminal investigation. 2. The second is a detention center that is sentenced to fixed-term imprisonment of less than three months remaining in prison. violates the principle of separation of powers, which is easy to cause confusion of power and abuse of power. Third, the detention center is transferred to judicial administrative organ , which can restrict and supervise the litigation behavior of the case-handling organ, especially the investigative behavior. According to the provisions of the functions of detention centers in my country's Criminal Procedure Law, the coordination and litigation function of detention centers serves both the prosecution and the defense, and must cooperate and restrict the investigative organs. For example, detention, immediate detention and arrest, and interrogation must be carried out in the detention center. The provisions are precisely a constraint on investigation and evidence collection, rather than cooperation. [9] The more effective way to restrict the investigative agency is that the detention center is no longer under the jurisdiction of the public security agency. Fourth, the detention center transfer to to judicial administrative organ can effectively protect the right to meet and other defense rights of lawyers . After research, some scholars found that there were some problems with lawyers meeting criminal suspects in detention centers, such as the situation where they could not meet according to law still exists, and the relevant facilities for ensuring lawyers' meetings were incomplete. At the same time, an important reason for the difficulty of meeting lawyers is that the detention centers do not pay attention to and cooperate, which is due to the detention center's concerns about lawyers' interference in investigative activities, which are closely related to the detention centers and public security organs. Therefore, transferring the detention center from the public security organs can ensure the neutrality of the detention center's lawyer meeting issue, and protects the legitimate rights and interests of the suspects and defendants .

In addition, from a global perspective, the pending detention right of is independent of the prosecution agency, and is a basically consistent choice. Whether in the Anglo-American or the Civil Law countries, generally, suspects are usually detained in detention centers under the control of police before judicial review, and after the pre-trial judge makes a detention decision, the prosecutor is usually detained in prison or in a place of imprisonment that is not controlled by the police or prosecutor. The purpose of this setting is obvious, to free the prosecutor from the direct control of the prosecution agency, thereby avoiding possible adverse consequences such as torture and obstructing lawyers that violate procedural fairness. Compared with foreign countries, my country has no judicial review mechanism for detention, and detention is the inevitable consequence of criminal detention and arrest. Then there is no need to distinguish between detention places before and after judicial review under the current legal framework. At the same time, the detention center has accumulated rich experience in pending detention since its establishment. At the same time, under the background of judicial reform, it has also carried out active self-innovation. Therefore, the detention center can be directly transferred to the judicial administrative organ as a whole, without the need for the prison to assume the functions of pending detention, which can well solve the problems of neutrality and independence of the pending detention enforcement agencies. After the detention center was transferred to the judicial administrative organ as a whole, it drew a clear line with the jurisdiction and departmental interests of the investigative organs, especially the public security organs. When the public security organs and procuratorates interrogate criminal suspects and defendants, they need to apply. The detention center is supervised during the trial, which can effectively prevent torture and forced confessions; when the detention period is about to expire, the detention center can remind the public security organs, procuratorates and courts to handle the changes or postponement procedures in a timely manner. When the deadline expires, the detention must be released due to the loss of the prerequisite for law enforcement, which can effectively prevent and control the problem of detention beyond the deadline. As a neutral detention institution, the detention center provides a place and convenience for lawyers to meet in accordance with the law, and no longer fears the so-called "interference" of lawyers in investigative activities, which can effectively protect the lawyer's right to defend; since it no longer assumes the function of "deep digging the remaining crimes" for the public security, it can effectively avoid the occurrence of illegal phenomena such as "prison head, prison bully", "prison investigator" and other illegal phenomena.

After the detention center was transferred to the judicial administrative agency as a whole, its existing penalties (execution of detention and short-term remaining sentences) were separated from the department and transferred to the prison for responsibility. This not only allowed the detention center to be more effectively supervised because the detention center was all pending criminals, but also allowed the execution of these two penalties to be implemented more professionally due to the transfer of these two penalties.

2. The judicial police agency is transferred from the court and the procuratorate to the judicial administrative agency

Under the current system, both the court and the procuratorate have judicial police agencies to assist in the trial, investigation and prosecution of this court respectively. Although this assistance demonstrates the "uniform effect" of the people's police, it also makes the work of the judicial police a supporting position and is not valued. At the same time, from the perspective of criminal execution, the court's "no distinction between trial and execution" not only drags down the trial work, but also greatly reduces the execution results.

On November 28, 2008, the Political Bureau of the CPC Central Committee adopted the "Opinions on Several Issues Concerning Deepening the Reform of the Judicial System and Work Mechanism" proposed: "The execution functions of the courts are divided into the jurisdiction of the Judicial Bureau, and other relevant administrative functions of the courts are divided into the jurisdiction of the judicial administrative organs, and the courts are specialized in trials." The communiqué of the Fourth Plenary Session of the 18th CPC Central Committee proposed to optimize the allocation of judicial powers and promote the implementation of a pilot system reform that separates judicial powers and executes the right to execute.The Tangshan Intermediate People's Court of Hebei Province, which belongs to this pilot unit, and the Higher People's Courts such as Beijing, Shanghai, Jiangsu, and Sichuan Province, have carried out reforms to separate trial and execution. The number of execution cases closed by the pilot courts has increased significantly year-on-year, and the number of letters and visits has decreased significantly year-on-year. The actual execution rate of cases and the induction rate of execution targets have been improved to varying degrees, and the quality and efficiency of execution work has been significantly improved.

Whether from the top-level plan of the central government for separation of trial and execution, or the successful pilot of the local government for separation of trial and execution, it confirms the importance and necessity of separation of trial and execution. Therefore, from the perspective of thoroughness of the reform, the Court Executive Bureau and Judicial Police Bureau can be transferred to the judicial administrative organs together to achieve effective checks and balances between trial and execution power.

At the same time, with the advancement of the reform of the national supervision system, the anti-corruption department as a whole was separated from the procuratorate, making the function of the judicial police of the procuratorate assisting the investigation in vain. Its can be transferred to the judicial administrative organs as a whole, merged to form a judicial police station, and granted it new powers to truly protect judicial work.

(II) Two separatist

In addition to detention, the penalties for deprivation of political rights and deportation undertaken by the public security organs also violates the basic principle of separation of powers. At the same time, due to limited police force, the execution of these two penalties is not taken seriously, resulting in poor execution. From the perspective of the unified execution subject of the punishment, the execution of these two punishments should be separated from the public security organs and handed over to the judicial administrative organs for the responsibility.

As for deprivation of political rights, in practice, there are often cases where criminals who are deprived of political rights who have often not been reported to the public security organs of their residence, or they are unable to contact them for a long time after reporting, and the public security organs cannot effectively supervise them. In addition, criminals deprived of political rights can only impose public security management penalties in accordance with the law because they have not constituted new crimes and cannot be imprisoned like criminals with probation or parole. The consequence of this is that not only are the punishments for criminals not severely, but public security punishments are also difficult to implement, making it difficult to carry out supervision and inspection work, which seriously affects the effectiveness of execution. [12]

For deportation, for foreigners who are sentenced to independently apply the deportation penalty, the people's court shall deliver a copy of the criminal's execution notice to the provincial public security organ in the place of residence within 15 days from the date of the effectiveness of the judgment, and shall be executed by the public security organ designated by the provincial public security organ; foreigners sentenced to imprisonment shall perform the additional sentence of deportation after the expiration of the main sentence. One month before the expiration of the principal sentence, the competent department of the former detention prison shall submit the copy or copy of the criminal's judgment, execution notice to the provincial public security organ in the place of residence, and shall be executed by the public security organ designated by the provincial public security organ in the place of residence one month before the expiration of the principal sentence. [13] The deportation is transferred to the judicial police. There are no obstacles in theory and there will be no major problems in actual operation.

(III) Seven reorganizations

After the execution subjects of the punishment are uniformly included in the jurisdiction of the judicial administrative organs, the punishments responsible for the execution of each execution subject must also be reasonably divided in order to streamline the execution system and resolve conflicts in execution.

combined with the above analysis, after divestment and reconstruction, the criminal execution agencies under the jurisdiction of judicial administrative agencies include detention centers, prisons, community correction agencies, judicial police agencies, and 5 types of punishments include main punishment (death penalty, life imprisonment, fixed-term imprisonment, detention, and control), and 4 additional punishments (fines, property confiscation, deprivation of political rights, and deportation). Only by respecting the basic laws of power operation can the punishment be accurately matched to the corresponding execution institutions, so as to achieve true integration of punishment execution.

1. The execution of death penalty is transferred from the court to the detention center to be responsible for

After the detention center is transferred, the positioning of is the execution of pending detention . The original execution of detention and short-term remaining sentences has been stripped, and the execution of the death penalty can be assigned to the detention center for responsibility. There are three basis for doing this: First, this will not impact the main responsibility of the detention of pending execution, because the execution of the death penalty does not take a long time, and the execution object does not require education and transformation, and only effective constraints and supervision are required; second, it can improve litigation efficiency, because death row prisoners are usually detained in the detention center before execution, and are executed in the detention center, saving the judicial cost of changing the execution site; third, it can effectively avoid the openness of the execution of the death penalty, thereby demonstrating the progress of the rule of law civilization and ensuring the safety of execution.

2. The execution of detention and short-term remaining sentences is transferred from the detention center to prison and responsible for

Detention and short-term remaining sentences are intrinsic to the same . Both punishments are deprived of freedom and reformed by the execution object. There is no more professional law enforcement agency in terms of deprivation of liberty and the transformation of criminals than prisons.

For the execution of detention, special places of detention can be set up in prisons, and the degree of deprivation of liberty can be slightly lighter than other imprisoned criminals. In terms of transformation methods, education and transformation are the main means.

For the execution of short-term remaining sentences, the prisoners can be directly incorporated into the prison or prison of light sentences, and imprisoned and renovated by the same methods and means. The execution of

3. fines and confiscation of property is transferred from the court to judicial police agency is responsible for the execution of

fines and confiscation of property. It is necessary to use coercive means such as inquiry, seizure, seizure, freeze, allocation, and auction. The "uniform effect" will play an important role in the implementation of this coercive means, so the execution of these two property penalties is effective to be handed over to the police for implementation. At the same time, before the transfer, the judicial police agency had participated in the court's execution of property punishment, so it is reasonable and feasible to hand over the execution of property punishment to the judicial police.

4. Deportation and deprivation of political rights is transferred from the public security organs to Judicial police agency is responsible for

Deportation and deprivation of political rights is an additional sentence and a qualification sentence. When the execution is transferred to the judicial administrative organs, the judicial police agency is the most suitable choice. There are two reasons: First, if it is executed by a detention center after being transferred, it will easily impact the responsibilities of the pending detention enforcement entity. Because deportation and deprivation of political rights both need to be implemented externally; second, judicial police agencies are competent for the execution of these two qualifications. The execution of deprivation of political rights is very special because the person subject to execution does not need to take positive actions, but only needs to cooperate and act in the wrong way. At the same time, deportation only requires confiscating the passport and other valid documents of the person subject to execution. Cooperation with the public security and border defense departments of the exit port will basically be completed. Therefore, the execution of these two qualification sentences should be subject to judicial police agencies, and there should be no big obstacles. In addition, several points that need to be noted are: First, after the detention center is transferred, its main responsibilities are pending detention and execution of the death penalty, and at the same time, it must undertake the escort and court tasks for court trial (the detention center directly escorts the defendant to the court, which is more efficient and safer than handing over to the judicial police agency for implementation); Second, judicial police are responsible for the implementation of compulsory measures such as the enforcement of compulsory measures in community correction and the implementation of prisons such as the punishment of fines, confiscation of property, deprivation of political rights, and deportation.

3. The risk response of the integration of criminal execution

The integrated reform of criminal execution involves the overall transfer of departments, and includes the integration and allocation of criminal execution rights, which will bring a series of risks and challenges to criminal execution work and even criminal litigation activities.

(I) The risk of reducing the case-solving rate of public security organs and response to

Facts show that torture and forced confessions and betrayal are decisive factors that cause unjust, false and wrong cases, and are a landmark feature of Chinese-style unjust cases. [16] Among the unjust, false and wrong cases that have been rehabilitated in recent years, the culprits have been torture and forced confessions. There are two main reasons why the unjust case can be rehabilitated: "The real murderer was arrested" and "the dead return". This extremely low-probability criminal case correction model shows the difficulty of correcting criminal unjust, false and wrong cases in my country. A bold and reasonable speculation is that the wrongful and false cases that can be corrected must not be the whole of the wrong cases. Among the huge group of criminal prosecutors, there are a certain number of wrongful subjects who have not yet been corrected. The universalization of torture and forced confessions reflects a series of legal and social problems, the most typical reason can be attributed to the investigators' excessive dependence on confessions and the non-scientific misguided guidance on solving political achievements.

The detention center will be transferred to the judicial administrative organ as a whole, and will abandon the public security function of digging deeper offenses. Illegal means such as prison investigators, prison heads, and torture will be curbed. The detention center will no longer assume or disguised responsibility for assisting investigation, which will inevitably bring a major impact to the case-solving rate. This kind of risk will exist for a certain period of time and to a certain extent, and the response to risk should focus on two dimensions: concept and mechanism.

1. Abandon the case-solving rate indicators that are eager for quick success and instant benefits, and establish a scientific view of investigative functions

In order to quickly solve criminal cases, especially murder cases, public security organs often formulate assessment performance indicators to form "case-solving GDP", such as "case-solving rate", "accuracy rate of arrest", "prosecution conviction rate", "time-limited settlement rate", etc., which is unscientific. For example, "the murder case must be solved" does not conform to materialist epistemology. Human understanding is limited, and investigation is not omnipotent. A "cold case" that cannot be solved within a limited period of time due to evidence or technology limitations. "Solving the case within a time limit" will inevitably put huge pressure on the police officers in charge of the case, and in desperation, illegal means emerge one after another. Taking Henan Province as an example, the case-solving rate in the province was once astonishingly high, 60% before 2003 and rose to 97.53% in 2009, ranking first in the country for seven consecutive years. Such "proud results" stem from the fact that major murder cases are "completed within a time limit, reported every day, and ranked every week". If the murder case resolution rate at the end of the year does not reach 100%, the director will make a review at the conference. In addition to canceling the qualification to evaluate the top and top, the units that rank the bottom will also affect the appointment of the director. On the contrary, for each murder case that was solved, the meritorious police officer was quickly promoted. [18] Although the Ministry of Public Security clearly proposed to cancel unscientific evaluation indicators such as "case solving rate" in 2015, [19] has not completely changed the numerous "digital assessment" mechanisms. Judging from the practical operation, the performance appraisal of public security organs on investigative work is likely to replace work value or effectiveness with digital indicators. As some scholars have pointed out, the existing internal performance appraisal systems often pay too much attention to the value of order and ignore the value of freedom, pay too much attention to the crackdown function and ignore the performance of the guarantee function, pay too much attention to the realization of investigation efficiency and ignore the improvement of investigation quality. [20] From the perspective of the evaluation system, this quantitative mono-evaluation model ignores that investigative work is a complex with multiple values ​​in a social context. Directed by "digital results" will ultimately make performance appraisals exceed their scope of application and lose their scientific nature.

Scientific investigation observation is an objective scientific attitude towards investigation work. According to the dialectical materialist view of understanding, the investigation work has its own strengths. For example, some cases lack evidence in short-term and some cases have limited police force and are unable to solve. Not only that, even if the cases that have been solved, whether the torture exists, whether the evidence collection procedures are legal, whether the human rights of persons outside the case are protected, etc. are all important indicators for considering the investigation work. Therefore, building a diversified and substantial assessment system can guide investigators from the pursuit of investigation quantity to the exploration of investigation quality. First of all, we must increase the weight of quality indicators and form an evaluation model that emphasizes both efficiency and quality. From the perspective of value orientation, our country's police model should aim at pursuing social harmony, rather than simply fighting crime.[21] In the establishment of specific indicators, the reoffending rate, victim satisfaction, community stability and other indicators should be increased for ordinary cases; for cases with significant social impact, the weight of deductions for investigation of illegal and irregular behaviors should be emphasized while emphasizing the rate of case solving, and an evaluation system for case investigation process related to criminal and wrong cases should be established by establishing internal wrong case correction indicators. Secondly, we must promote the long-term and dynamic assessment goals. At present, performance appraisal generally tends to be short-term and specialized. This assessment model with the purpose of short-term evaluation is a huge incentive for illegal investigation and illegal case handling. The weight of medium- and long-term indicators and sustainable development indicators for investigative work should be increased, especially for major and serious cases and multiple cases, static assessment should not be carried out with special indicators, but should be carried out from the perspective of the comprehensive effect of "fighting, preventing, controlling and controlling" and conducting a comprehensive and reasonable assessment in all aspects.

2. Change the lazy political thinking that is overly reliant on confessions, and improve the driving force of technology for investigation

torture and forced confessions are repeatedly banned, and the export supply is extremely attractive to investigators. Through confessions, criminal suspects can be identified, stolen money and goods can be seized, criminal tools can be found, etc., greatly improving the efficiency of investigation. In essence, excessive reliance on confession is a manifestation of inertia. In the information society with highly developed science and technology, various scientific and technological means can be used to arm the investigation, and evidence forms such as physical evidence, documentary evidence, appraisal opinions, audio-visual materials, electronic data, etc. can be obtained more conveniently and effectively with the help of scientific and technological means. Scientific and technological investigation methods mainly include key monitoring methods such as video surveillance and network surveillance; on-site evidence collection methods such as electronic data, trace substances, fingerprint traces; related analysis methods such as mobile phones, DNA, and human flesh search; clue discovery methods such as psychological testing and hypnosis.

Today, with the rapid development of technology, investigative agencies should give up their paranoia of confession and explore the use of more technological means to improve the quality of investigative work. For example, big data can be used to change passive investigation into active investigation to combat crime and prevent crime. Use information technology to strengthen the construction of regional police cooperation mechanisms, enhance investigation capabilities, and improve detection efficiency.

(II) The risk of increasing difficulty in execution of property penalties and dealing with

fines and difficulty in execution of property confiscation have always been a problem in criminal execution. In judicial practice, in order to solve the problem of difficulty in executing fines, many courts have taken measures to require the defendant to pay the fine in advance before the judgment is announced, and give lenient consideration to the defendants who pay the fine in advance in sentencing. Although this approach of paying fines in advance is highly practical, it has never been able to get rid of the doubts of "repeating punishment with money" and "spending money to buy punishment". At the same time, this approach also faces accusations of violating the principle of presumption of innocence. Although this "pay first and then sentence" practice is still controversial, it does play a positive role in the execution of the fine and it does have its reasonableness from the perspective of execution.

After the execution of property punishment is transferred from the court to the judicial administrative authority, the court no longer has the pressure to execute, and it will no longer urge the implementation of property punishment through the sentencing leverage. In this way, the problem of difficulty in executing property punishment for judicial administrative organs becomes increasingly serious. Of course, whether it is the "Interpretation of the Supreme People's Court on the Application of the Criminal Procedure Law of the People's Republic of China" or the "Regulations of the Supreme People's Court on the Specific Application of Laws in Handling Criminal and Parole Cases", it is clear that the performance of property penalties is an important consideration in the procedures for commutation of sentences and parole. However, with the strict identification of specific groups of people by criminal policies, a certain proportion of prisoners have lost the opportunity to commutate sentences and parole, which is not conducive to their enthusiasm for performing property penalties.

Constructing a systematic guarantee mechanism before, during and after lawsuits is the main way to deal with the difficulty of property punishment.

1. Establish a pre-trial property preservation system

Although my country has clarified the preservation procedures for property in the trial procedure, the lack of pre-trial property preservation system has laid hidden dangers for the difficulty of execution of property punishment. The pre-trial procedure, including the investigation and investigation of the criminal suspect's legal property during the investigation and prosecution stage, is directly related to whether the property punishment can be successfully executed.In the investigation and review and prosecution of criminal cases, if the property of the criminal suspect is neglected to investigate and control, the property that can be executed may be transferred, concealed or otherwise disposed of, making the property sentence difficult to execute after the judgment takes effect.

The procuratorate and criminal victims may apply to the people's court to take property preservation for the suspect or defendant. However, property preservation should be limited to the premise that the situation is urgent, or the property is highly likely to be transferred or sold. If the judicial organ believes that the property is highly likely to be transferred or sold, or there is evidence that it is being transferred or hidden or sold, the people's court may, in accordance with its powers, take measures such as seizure and seizure to prevent the person subject to execution from maliciously reducing the property available for execution.

2. Establish a property investigation system in litigation

Criminal laws in Germany, Russia, France, Switzerland, Taiwan, my country and other areas have provisions. When the court determines the amount of the fine, the property situation of the defendant must be considered. The relevant judicial interpretations of the Supreme People's Court of my country also clearly define the application of property punishment based on the defendant's property status and economic capacity, but there is no specific property investigation system. Only by sufficient investigation can the defendant's true ability to perform, so it is particularly necessary to establish a property investigation system. The court can issue an investigation order, and the banks, real estate registration departments, vehicle management offices, securities companies and other relevant units can cooperate, verify the matter in the community, and jointly complete the investigation of the defendant's property; the people's court will decide whether the property punishment is applicable and the amount of the applicable amount based on the defendant's financial ability shown by the investigation results. This will greatly increase the probability of execution success.

3. Establishing a post-litigation property punishment system for easy-to-degree punishment

punishment , also known as replacement punishment punishment, refers to the punishment declared by the judgment, which cannot be executed or is not suitable for execution due to special reasons, and other punishments are chosen as the replacement for execution. Many countries have provisions on the criminal statutory system. According to Article 43 of the German Criminal Law, if the property penalty is not paid or recovered, it will be replaced by free punishment. The fine can also be paid in the form of "public welfare labor". In the UK, if a magistrate believes that the person who owes the penalty is liable for the failure to pay and other methods of execution cannot work, they can issue a writ to transfer it to the prison, and the sentence is determined by the Royal Court judge in the time of the arrears if the royal court fine is not paid.

In order to solve the difficulty of execution of property punishment, it is very necessary to establish a system of easy-to-document. The property status of the criminals sentenced to property punishment varies greatly, and the reasons for the inability to execute property punishment are also complicated. If you only find solutions within the property punishment execution procedure, and lack alternative solutions when it cannot be executed, and you are still unable to change the problem that the person subject to execution has no property for execution, the system of recovering fines at any time is basically a failure in practice. The property punishment system, by converting property punishment execution into other penalties and non-penal punishment methods such as free punishment or compulsory labor, has basically solved the problem that the property punishment execution procedure itself is difficult to overcome, and has achieved penalties in disguise through another method. What is particularly beneficial is that this creates a legal way out for difficult property penalties cases to ensure the normal operation of the property penalties execution procedures.

(III) The risk of increasing the number of prison prisoners and responses

The number of people sentenced to detention in my country from 2011 to 2016 was 76683, 112,766, 133,044, 145,086, 157,915, and 165,161 respectively. This showed a clear trend of increasing year by year

After the integration of the execution of the penalties, the criminals and the remaining criminals in the short term will be transferred from detention centers to prisons to serve their sentences, which will increase the number of prisoners and bring certain risks and challenges to the supervision and transformation work.

1. Risks and responses brought about by the increase in the number of detainees

According to incomplete statistics, the number of detainees in nearly 700 prisons nationwide is as high as more than 1 million.As the integrated reform of criminal execution is further promoted, the number of prisoners in each prison will increase to varying degrees, which is undoubtedly aggravation for many prisons that have been overwhelmed. The difficulty of supervision and transformation will be further increased, and the risks of prison law enforcement will be more prominent. To explore feasible plans to reduce the number of prisoners, we must follow the existing judicial system reform orientation and use the current legal support to promote the reform of the prison management system. Among them, the increased application of probation can effectively reduce the number of prisoners in prison; the increased application of parole can effectively increase the number of prisoners in prison; the increased application of commutation can effectively shorten the time for prisoners to serve their sentences, and multiple measures can reduce the number of prisoners in prison to a certain extent and alleviate the risk of prison law enforcement. Therefore, steadily increasing the rate of probation, commutation of sentence, parole, and temporary release from prison is a legal way to deal with the excessive number of prisoners detained in prison.

In judicial practice, the application rate of probation in my country has been low, with 31%, 29%, and 30% respectively in the past three years (see Figure 3), [35], while the average application rate of probation abroad is about 40%. In addition to the important factor of the heavy-duty tradition, the imperfection of the community correction system is also the main consideration for the courts to be unwilling to get involved in probation judgments. With the further improvement of the community correction system and the further follow-up of the community police system, it is predictable that the court's probation judgment rate will increase to a certain extent.

my country's parole rate has been extremely low for many years, and [36] has a great distance from the expected function of legislation, which has affected the role of the parole system in the execution of penalties. Article 26, Paragraph 2 of the "Regulations of the Supreme People's Court on the Specific Application of Laws in Handling Cases of Compression of Sentences and Parole" stipulates: "If criminals meet the statutory conditions for commutation of sentences and statutory parole conditions, parole may be applied first." The guiding role played in judicial practice has not been obvious since the implementation of the provisions for more than a year. The parole rate and sentence reduction rate have been stagnant, and the deep obstacle lies in the conservatism and paranoidness of law enforcement concepts. Against the backdrop of the development trend of criminal rule of law, the reduction of punishment is a step back, it is imperative to increase the commutation rate and parole rate.

2. The risk of transformation brought about by the increase in short-term prisoners and the response to

detention and the influx of short-term prisoners has increased the difficulty of prison supervision reform. Prison reform has always been relatively focused on incentivizing criminals to plead guilty and punish crimes through commutation of sentences and parole. The methods of commutation of sentences and parole are obviously not very useful in renovating short-term prisoners, because the probability of receiving reduced sentence parole for most short-term prisoners (especially short-term prisoners transferred to prison in the detention center, with a maximum sentence of only 6 months) is very small. This will seriously affect the enthusiasm of such personnel to transform. In this regard, we must explore a transformation model suitable for short-term criminals and actively respond to the possible risks brought about by the integrated reform of criminal execution.

First, we must establish a joint inspection mechanism between prisons and detention centers. combines the performance of the detention center records and the inspection of the pending detention period with the prison records and the inspection of the decree during the decree period, and builds a search information sharing mechanism to realize joint inspection of the prison center. This can prevent short-term prisoners from taking prison time to a certain extent from being unable to apply for commutation of sentences, parole, etc.

Second, we must build a scientific short-term prisoner transformation model. Generally speaking, short-term criminals have little subjective malice, and the means of transformation should be different from ordinary criminals. Inspiring the desire and confidence of short-term prisoners in life after being released from prison is the key to successfully completing the transformation task. In this regard, vocational skills training can be carried out for the group of short-term prisoners that is suitable for individuals and facilitates their smooth return to society, increase the number of meetings with short-term prisoners, strengthen the input of short-term prisoners to external information (such as increasing the reception of external information by short-term prisoners such as television, newspapers, and the Internet), etc., so that short-term prisoners often perceive the world outside the prison, thereby generating yearning, enhancing confidence, and increasing their enthusiasm for transformation.

Author profile: Zong Huixia, associate professor at Zhejiang Police Vocational College, Ph.D.

[Note] Omitted

Organized from: China Law Network