| Summary: | 碩士 === 國立中正大學 === 法律學研究所 === 100 === In accordance with relevant provisions of Taiwan’s Criminal Procedure Law and the deployment of judicial police, viewing prosecutors as the main player in criminal investigation has its legal basis; however, in practice, many investigation procedures are completed by judicial police. Practitioners and scholars have long criticized and questioned whether such a gap results in deteriorated investigation efficiency, mismatched responsibilities and other negative consequences. And they have also proposed amending the law.
Taiwan’s Criminal Procedure Law has been amended substantially after 2002 to reduce the court’s obligation to investigate, to convert prosecutors’ burden of proof, to implement cross-examination policies, and to emphasize on adversary system. The role of prosecutors has shifted from being legal guardians to prosecutors with the party’s perspective. This new dynamics between prosecutors and police in investigation seems to form the new task assignment gradually. Because crimes are ever-changing and professionalized, judicial police has its great advantages in expertise, personnel capacity, and equipment. Therefore, discussions regarding whether investigation should be led by prosecutors completely, whether investigation should be led by judicial police and how to lead investigation have resurfaced.
With comprehensive literature and history review, analysis, and integration and taking a practical perspective in law and investigation, this paper explores the rationale of the investigation system and task assignment, compares Taiwan’s system with the systems used in Germany, the US, and Japan, discusses the status quo and problems of Taiwan’s investigation system, and argues whether prosecutors or judicial police should take the leading role in investigation. Conclusions and suggestions are provided.
|
|---|
