追诉时效中“逃避侦查或者审判”的释义学分析

On the Dogmatic Analysis of “Evading Investigation or Trial” in the Limitation of Prosecution

追诉时效具有直接限定刑事责任承担的法定效力,时效期限如何认定作为影响刑事责任的关键环节在刑事司法中占据着举足轻重的地位。追诉时效中“逃避侦查或者审判”作为时效终止的立法表述,需要结合刑事追诉的实质与规则构建的合逻辑性进行释义学解读。“逃避侦查或者审判”叠加于刑事立案侦查或者法院受理案件之后,不应作为积极要件予以理解与适用,否则与时效制度督促刑权力行使的本义不相融合,而且囿于行为人视域的逃避行为方能终止时效,这一结论致使刑事追诉的程序推进受制于外在因素欠缺合理性,同时由于逃避时点和行为类型的非定型化必然带来适用混乱。“逃避侦查或者审判”作为消极要件是回归刑事追诉本质的体现,这一性质归属不仅可以弥补逻辑周延性的诸多不足,而且较好契合了关联规则的体系考量。

The limitation of prosecution has the legal effect of directly limiting criminal responsibility. How to determine the limitation period, as a key link affecting criminal responsibility, plays an important role in criminal justice. As the legislative expression of the termination of limitation of prosecution, “evading investigation or trial” in the limitation of prosecution needs to be interpreted in combination with the essence of criminal prosecution and the logic of rule construction. “Evasion of investigation or trial” superimposed on the criminal investigation or the court’s acceptance of a case should not be understood and applied as a positive element,otherwise it will not integrate with the original meaning of the prescription system to urge the exercise of criminal power, and the evasion behavior limited to the actor’s perspective can end the prescription, which makes the progress of criminal prosecution subject to external factors, and at the same time, the evasion of time point and the uncertainty of behavior types bring about the confusion of application. “Evading investigation or trial”as a passive element is the reflection of returning to the essence of criminal prosecution, which not only makes up for many logical questions, but also better fits the systematic consideration of association rules.