论检察绩效考核的制度语境与转型逻辑

Performance Evaluation System in Chinese Procuratorates:Model and Its Logic

在不同法域,检察考核均是优化检察权运行和绩效管理的重要举措之一。基于语境的比较,美国与法国、德国、中国台湾地区分别选择了检察独立和检察一体等不同的检察运行模式,在检察绩效的考核方法上却均表现出"以考核个体为重心"的共通特征,在"考核指标的量化程度"和"外部评估的实践效果"等方面也存在重要差别。表层趋同与内涵差疏映射着两种检察体制的深层结构和逻辑,即以检察独立为主的美国模式乃根植于协作型的权力结构,更强调社区参与的价值;以检察一体为主的法国、德国、中国台湾地区模式乃生发于科层式权力结构,更强调量化指标的上行下效。中国大陆地区类似于欧陆法系的检察一体模式,检察功能也更多元,因此,以"条线考核"和"内部考核"为特征的考核体系可能还会维系较长时期,未来可通过完善检察人员分类考核、重视个人考评结果、建立双向互动的检察考核模式,来解决个体激励不足和缺乏民主监督的实践弊端。

In different jurisdictions, performance evaluation system is commonly used to optimize the operation of prosecutorial power and the management of prosecutors’ performance. Based on contextual comparison, we find that America, France, Germany and Chinese Taiwan have chosen different modes of procuratorial operation: the principle of independence and the principle of unity. They share the same characteristics of " individual-based evaluation" regarding the evaluative method, while they are different for " quantitative degree of indicators" and "effects of social evaluation". Both convergence and divergence indicate the infrastructure and logic of the two kinds of procuratorial systems: the American mode of "independence of prosecutors" is rooted in the cooperative structure of power, which focuses on the value of community participation;while the mode of France, Germany and Chinese Taiwan, "unity of prosecutors" is originated from bureaucratic structure of power, which emphasizes the "top-down" effect of quantitative indicators. China's Mainland adopted the principle of"unity of prosecutors" and multiple prosecutorial functions. Therefore, the performance evaluation system characterized by "prosecutorialfunction-based assessment" and "internal-assessment" may be maintained for a long period. In order to avoid the insufficiency of individual motivation and lack of external supervision, the reformers could think more about utilizing the classified, individual-based, and consultative evaluation methods in the future.