Abstract：The use of designated jurisdiction by supervisory authorities has become a normalization phenomenon in practice. Although it has improved the effectiveness of combating duty crimes, it has also led to issues such as rising system costs, poor connection between supervisory and criminal justice jurisdiction, and hidden concerns about rights protection. How to view and respond to this phenomenon, there are differences in understanding between the theory of unified trial jurisdiction and the theory of maintaining the status quo. In order to solve the resulting conflict between the jurisdiction of supervision and criminal justice, the academic community has proposed plans such as the special trial jurisdiction theory and the local trial theory of judges in different regions. The practical departments mainly adopt the designated lower level investigation, local peer prosecution and trial model, or the designated lower level investigation, and local prosecution and trial model. Although each of these plans or practices has its own rationale and significance, there are also theoretical difficulties or practical difficulties. Based on the consideration of value trade-offs, in the construction of the system for supervisory organs to apply designated jurisdiction, it is necessary: to refine the conditions for designated jurisdiction, incorporate considerations of the nature of the case, the seriousness of the circumstances, and the magnitude of the impact, and strictly enforce the application of designated jurisdiction across regions; to improve the designated jurisdiction procedure and grant the respondent and their close relatives the right to know and dissent from the designated jurisdiction; to construct a connection mode of “generally returning to local litigation and trial, and exceptionally proceeding in situ” to strengthen the smoothness of the connection.
2023, Vol. 37 
浙公网安备 33011802000512号