1. Problems existing in site investigation, inspection and evidence collection.

After receiving the report, the public security organ shall conduct an investigation on the crime scene and form a record of on-site investigation. Do not have the conditions for on-site investigation, the public security organ shall conduct on-site inspection and form a record of on-site inspection, and at the same time take photos of the scene and fix relevant evidence. However, the current situation is as follows: first, technicians do not pay attention to the investigation of crime scenes such as picking fights, gathering people to fight, theft, and current cases, do not conduct necessary investigations and tests, and do not collect relevant trace material evidence, which eventually leads to the formation of solitary evidence only when the suspect confesses. Once the suspect recants, it is impossible to finalize the case. Secondly, technicians only pay attention to the inspection of the main scene, ignoring the inspection of the relevant scene, resulting in some key trace material evidence can not be extracted, unable to fully confirm the case, making the evidence of the whole case unable to form a complete evidence system. Thirdly, even if on-site investigation is carried out, many on-site investigation transcripts are full of mistakes, and even the basic facts such as where the crime scene is are not clear; There are quite a few cases without on-site photos, even if there are on-site photos, there is no accurate and standardized explanation; The content of the investigation transcript is inconsistent with the scene photos, which leads to the fact that the suspect's confession and the evidence obtained during the scene investigation cannot form an evidence chain, which weakens the effectiveness of the evidence. Fourth, when technicians conduct an inquest on the crime scene of an existing case, the on-site investigation should be continued. However, at present, most investigators only pay attention to the preliminary investigation work, and do not fix and extract the physical evidence and documentary evidence related to the crime on the spot according to the needs of the case development, so as to provide strong support for the detection of the case.

2. Problems in the trial

First of all, interrogation is a battle of wits between investigators and criminal suspects, and it is one of the channels for public security organs to find out the facts of cases, especially the details of criminal acts. In the process of interrogation, we should combine the physical evidence, documentary evidence and other evidence collected in the previous investigation, and use certain skills and strategies to urge the criminal suspect to confess the facts of the crime. At present, investigators only pay attention to the collection and fixation of documentary evidence and physical evidence. When interrogating a criminal suspect, it is impossible to trace the source and use of material evidence, and the necessary verification work has not been carried out, which makes it impossible to characterize the case and dig deep into the remaining crimes.

Secondly, the interrogation record is simple and rough. The interrogation record cannot describe in detail the criminal suspect's means of committing crimes, the scene situation, the natural state at the time of committing crimes, the characteristics of the infringed object, and the guilty confession and innocent defense made by the criminal suspect. In some cases, the suspect's confession to the crime scene is not specific, so it is impossible to verify the authenticity of the suspect's confession, especially in the case of fingerprint and footprint comparison. If the confession of the suspect and the statement of the victim are consistent with the scene, it will play an irreplaceable role in fixing the confession of the suspect. In other cases, criminal suspects often evade subjectively and intentionally, and cover up their real purpose through fictional behavior and language. Only when the confession of the suspect is truthfully recorded in detail during the trial can contradictions be found and the essence of the suspect be exposed.

In addition, the phenomenon of copying interrogation transcripts is serious, which leads to the authenticity of transcripts being questioned. The confession of a criminal suspect may change with the changes of time, space, suspect's mood and environment at any time. At the same time, with the development of the case, the perspective of interrogators is constantly expanding. By grasping the details such as time, node and content of each interrogation, an objective interrogation record cannot be exactly the same. In the process of handling cases, investigators are not responsible. In order to save time, they simply copied and pasted the criminal suspect's initial interrogation record, which affected the objectivity of the record.

Finally, although the Criminal Procedure Law and the three joint regulations of the two houses exclude the probative effect of extorting a confession by torture, there are still extorting a confession by torture or being suspected of extorting a confession by torture in the criminal law enforcement process of grass-roots public security organs. If there are scars on the suspect, it may be a special case that the suspect was injured in arrest, escape or other unexpected circumstances, then investigators should reflect the cause, process and injury as real interrogation materials to avoid passivity in work.

3. Find out the problems existing in the activities.

The main problems in the appraisal activities are as follows: First, the questioning link before the debate is missing. Before the appraisal object (person, thing and place) was appraised, the investigators did not ask or interrogate the appraisal object in detail to find out the specific characteristics of the appraisal object and whether the appraisal object has the appraisal conditions, which led to the authenticity of the appraisal record being questioned. Second, the relationship between initiative and passivity is misplaced. On-the-spot identification should be that investigators go to the identified place under the guidance of the identifier according to the statement or confession of the identifier, rather than looking for the identified place under the guidance of the investigator. In reality, investigators have reversed the relationship between initiative and passivity, leading to the suspicion of forging evidence. Third, there are no identification conditions. In the previous inquiry or interrogation, the appraiser made it clear that he had never been to the scene or was not clear about the appraised object. In order to trace the evidence, the investigators specially identified it, took identification photos and made identification records. Its illegal evidence collection leads to the identification results can not be consistent with other proof materials, so it has no identification significance. Fourth, the identified object is wrong. When appraising multiple appraisal objects, appraisers should prepare different sets of foil photos for appraisal respectively, instead of using multiple sets of foil photos for the same appraisal only by replacing the photos of appraisal objects. Otherwise, the reliability of the appraisal conclusion will be questioned.

4. Lack of evidence awareness

The core of criminal law enforcement of public security organs is not to find out who is a criminal suspect and what kind of criminal acts have been committed, but to prove who has committed criminal acts with evidence. Therefore, evidence is the soul of the whole investigation. However, the investigators of grass-roots public security organs still lack due awareness in collecting, collecting and fixing evidence. Mainly in the following aspects:

First, the evidence was not collected in time, resulting in the loss of evidence. Evidence preservation is closely related to evidence collection, and timely, comprehensive, objective and meticulous evidence collection is the basis and premise of evidence preservation. At present, when handling the current case, the public security organs mistakenly believe that the suspect has confessed, did not investigate the scene or did not examine the scene carefully, and attached importance to verbal evidence, resulting in the extracted evidence not being extracted; Lack of analysis and research on case investigation and evidence collection, failure to collect necessary evidence in time, resulting in evidence omission; Failure to use legal documents in time during seizure, resulting in loss or damage of evidence, etc. ; Evidence collection is not in place, resulting in evidence can not be preserved in time.

Second, there is a lack of awareness of evidence collection. For example, when determining whether it is necessary to arrest a criminal suspect, if the criminal suspect is a migrant worker, investigators should check whether he has a fixed residence, a guarantor, whether he can pay a deposit, whether he has committed crimes for many times, and so on. If it is a gang crime, it is necessary to explain whether the accomplice is at large and whether there is the possibility of conspiracy to obtain bail pending trial. And confirm the necessity of arrest through these evidences. Investigators did not do the necessary investigation and evidence collection to prove the necessity of arrest, and all outsiders were arrested. For another example, investigators have a sense of price appraisal when dealing with stolen goods, but the proof materials provided are not strong enough, and often only rely on the statements or confessions of victims and criminal suspects to appraise the price of goods. For the goods involved in which the victim could not provide the invoice, sufficient evidence was not collected to confirm the time, price and quality of the purchased goods, which provided a basis for the accurate pricing of the price department.

Third, there is a lack of fixed awareness of investigation activities. The development of investigation activities, on the one hand, is a channel for finding, collecting and fixing evidence, on the other hand, the fixing of the investigation process itself can prove the legitimacy of investigation activities and the source of the evidence obtained, which plays an important role in proving the facts of the case. However, some investigators do not attach importance to the collection of audio-visual materials in this area. Especially when handling major, sensitive, difficult, complex cases, eight cases, gang cases and cases with relatively weak objective evidence, on the one hand, we should pay attention to mutual confirmation of the evidence in the process of criminal suspect interrogation, on the other hand, we should record and video the confession of criminal suspect's guilt or innocence and transfer it with the case, and record and video the interrogation, on-site investigation and identification and evidence collection of "triple punishment" cases. This will help to prevent the suspect from retracting his confession, and also prove that the evidence obtained by investigators is obtained through legal channels.

(2) Procedural issues

1. Problems in acceptance and filing

The problems in the process of accepting cases are mainly reflected in making and filling in the registration form for accepting criminal cases. Mainly manifested as incomplete, impersonal and wrong filling contents. Every item in the form must be filled in truthfully. If there are any missing items, they must be underlined. The report content column should fill in the contents of the alarm, not the criminal facts of the suspect.

There are two main problems in filing a case. First, filing a case is not timely. The main performance is that minor injury cases cannot be filed in time. The case-handling unit often mistakenly believes that minor injury cases can be handled through mediation procedures, which leads to the failure to establish criminal cases for investigation in time after injury identification, and the collected evidence is not collected. When the suspect and the victim can't reach an agreement and then go back to file a case for investigation, some evidence has been lost, resulting in insufficient conviction evidence. This is also the main reason for the "big interview" case. Second, it is optional when filing a case. Although we can't ask the case handlers to define the nature of the case very accurately at the beginning of the case, we should make a correct judgment for those who clearly distinguish this crime from that crime. However, for the purpose of assessing the head, case handlers often classify intentional injury cases as affray, affray and so on. This is quite arbitrary.

2. Failing to perform the statutory examination and approval procedures.

First, the examination and approval procedures were not fulfilled when legal documents were issued. After placing a case on file, it is a serious law enforcement activity for investigators to summon criminal suspects and take measures such as summons, detention and search. The examination and approval procedures should be strictly implemented, and relevant documents should not be distributed casually, otherwise it will leave hidden dangers for future work. In practice, because the approval authority of these measures is within the public security organs, investigators know that these measures need to go through legal procedures, so they often carry blank detention warrants and search warrants until the execution is completed or even the case is submitted to the procuratorate for approval of arrest or transfer for prosecution. First implement and then approve, so that approval becomes a mere formality.

The second is to adopt technical investigation means, and the approval procedure is a mere formality. Investigation measures, especially technical investigation means, do much more harm to the legitimate rights and interests of criminal suspects and other people related to the case than conventional measures, but the two evils are the lesser. In order to solve this case as soon as possible, the criminals must be brought to justice. Article 16 of the People's Police Law of the People's Republic of China stipulates that public security organs may take technical reconnaissance measures after strict approval procedures in accordance with relevant state regulations. The purpose of this provision is to minimize the damage of technical investigation to the legitimate rights and interests of relevant parties. In practice, grass-roots public security organs are unable to adopt technical investigation methods, and often rely on the support of technical investigation departments of municipal public security organs. In the past, grass-roots public security organs only needed the cooperation of technical investigation departments when the case was serious and complicated, and few cases used technical investigation means; Today, once a case happens, no matter whether the case is complicated or not, the first thing investigators think of is means. This has led to a sharp increase in the number of cases accepted by the Technical Investigation Department. Under such heavy pressure, the original careful examination and approval procedure is a mere formality, and the examination and approval procedure is simplified to filling out forms.

3. The implementation procedures are not standardized

(1) The executing entity does not meet the requirements. In the process of interrogating criminal suspects, witnesses or other investigations, the two-person case handling system is not strictly implemented, and it is often reflected from the materials that investigators have conducted more than two investigations at the same time, which leads to the failure to explain the reasons during the arrest and public prosecution stages, and the public prosecution agency finds that obtaining evidence is illegal, which affects the normal litigation of the case.

(2) The implementation of legal procedures is not standardized. When obtaining verbal evidence, investigators should strictly perform legal procedures to avoid illegal evidence collection. When interrogating a criminal suspect on bail pending trial, the summoning procedure should be used: when interrogating a minor, a notice of the presence of the legal representative of the minor criminal suspect should be issued; If the case needs to notify the relevant witnesses to testify in the public security organ, a notice of inquiry shall be issued. Witnesses who take the initiative to testify in public security organs should be truthfully reflected in the interrogation record, and grassroots case handlers often ignore these legal procedures. In addition, criminal summoning and compulsory summoning procedures are used in confusion. Criminal summons is a compulsory way to inform a criminal suspect to go to a designated place for interrogation, and compulsory summons is a criminal compulsory measure. If the criminal facts of the suspect are known and the suspect should be arrested, the procedure of compulsory summons should be used, which is obviously inappropriate and it is difficult to determine whether the suspect has surrendered himself.

(3) Error in execution time. The problems are mainly reflected in the following links: First, detention in different places. Investigators detained in different places shall obtain the cooperation of the local public security organs. After detaining a criminal suspect, according to the needs of the case, the suspect can be interrogated on the spot or brought back for interrogation. No matter whether the current detention is carried out or the foreign public security organs cooperate to arrest the "three fugitives", the execution time must be filled in the detention certificate, and the interrogation must be carried out within 24 hours after the execution of the detention. Often, the "three fugitives" are taken to other places, and the case handlers will ignore the interrogation within 24 hours, and the interrogation after taking people back has exceeded the legal time, resulting in illegal procedures. The second is interrogation activities. The time recorded in the interrogation record is inconsistent with the time reflected in the interrogation certificate and summons certificate. The main reason for this phenomenon is that the interrogation of suspects by investigators is not synchronized with the production of interrogation records. Third, compulsory measures are overdue. In particular, it is reflected in the process of requesting approval for arrest during detention and transferring prosecution during detention. After the criminal suspect is detained in the detention center, investigators are busy with further investigation and evidence collection of this case or investigation of other cases, and often ignore the detention period, making extended detention the norm. In addition, the Criminal Procedure Law stipulates that after a criminal suspect is released on bail pending trial due to insufficient evidence, he may not stop his investigation activities, that is, he must conduct investigation activities within three months. Some investigators "protect the suspect from being investigated" after releasing him on bail pending trial, and do not carry out work for one year, which leads to illegal procedures.