美国选择性起诉抗辩的证明困境及原因

The Proof Dilemma and Causes of the Selective Prosecution Claim in America

选择性起诉是政府基于恶意,歧视性地进行刑事起诉裁量的行为,因其目的之恶以及违反法之平等精神而受抗辩。美国司法有两种抗辩途径:通过禁令救济提起民事侵权之诉和在刑事诉讼中提起选择性起诉抗辩。然而,美国法院对这两种救济都确立了难以逾越的证明责任,并且将其分配给了申请人。其中民事抗辩的"现实的、迫在眉睫的侵害的威胁"证明,刑事抗辩的不正当起诉标准证明,几乎将所有的申请人阻挡在抗辩门外。美国法院的这种态度是因为其实际并不愿意介入此种审查,根源主要在于司法系统对于分权原则下司法权的克制和对检察官自由裁量权的尊重传统。

Selective prosecution is a kind of criminal prosecutorial discretion, which is claimed on account of unjust purpose that the government selects someone to accuse on the base of viciousness or prejudice. There are two claims in the American judicial system. One is to apply Injunctive Relief to file a civil tort. The other is to ask for a Selective Prosecution Claim in criminal prosecution. However, either of them is enslaved to the insurmount- able burden of proof established by US courts. The proof burden of a real and immediate injury in civil claim and the proof standard of an improper prosecution in criminal claim stop almost all of the claimers outside the door. The root cause is the unwillingness of the US courts to intervene in such judicial review, due to the tradition of the judicial restraint by the principle of separation of powers and the respect to the prosecution discretion.