批准逮捕的权力应当属于谁——逮捕权归属问题分析-who should the power of approving arrest belong to analysis on the ownership of arrest right.docxVIP

there are several major problems in the operation of Chinas approval of arrest. Firstly, some detainees are not constrained by the approval of arrest restraint. Secondly, the process of the arrest’s approval is not in public and criminal suspects can not effectively participate in them; Thirdly, too many arrests are approved and detention is extended too arbitrary, leading to many unnecessary detention; Fourthly, there is the lack of judicial relief after the approval of arrest procedures, thus undermines the protection of the rights of suspects. In the latter part, there is theoretical analysis by angle of power constraints and procedural fairness .The research pointed out that in Chinas operation of arrests, there is a lack of power constraints and procedural fairness, thus violating the rights of criminal suspects who are reduced to object of litigation.Part Ⅲ: Relevant academic perspectives. This section describesthe four representative views, and analysis them one by one .The first view is from the point of justice, proposed the neutral Court to have the jurisdiction of arrest. Objectively speaking, this vies is a more ideal but less feasibility recently. The second view supports the courts and peoples procurators to share the right. Specifically, when the investigation is implemented by the procurator, the court should take charge of the arrest approving, thus to fill the shortage. The third category is that the Jurisdiction of arrest is part of the right to legal supervision, so Jurisdiction of arrest r is still left to the procurator. When the investigation is implemented by the procurator, the superior organ should take charge of the arrest approving, thus to fill the shortage. The fourth category is to maintain the now-using method. Focused on problems that arose in practice, they advised some reforms to enhance the restraint.Part Ⅳ: View of the author. Ideal state is to attribute the power tothe courts who exercises neutrally. The author proved the view f