诱惑侦查，由于在立法上没有得到确认和规制，在实践当中长期处于失范的状态。本文先从法理和宪法上寻找诱惑侦查合法性的界限，以诱惑侦查各个因素为分类依据对其进行类型的细分，在此基础上讨论诱惑侦查主体、对象、案件范围、方式和程度的限度。由此，从比较法的角度对各国针对违法诱惑侦查所采取的认定标准和救济措施予以研究，结合我国的司法实践和刑事诉讼环境，现实地设计我国诱惑侦查的救济措施和程序机制。诱惑侦查是指国家侦察人员或者雇用人员，以及民间合作者和同案犯，通过诱发侦查对象产生犯意，或向侦查对象提供实施犯罪的条件或机会，鼓动、诱使侦查对象实施犯罪的侦查手段。其功能在于固定犯罪证据，抓获犯罪嫌疑人。常被用于隐蔽性、组织性高，反侦查能力强，无被害人的毒品、黑社会等性质的犯罪，也被用于侦破系列恶性案件。其具有主动性、欺骗性和诱导性的特征，这也是区分诱惑侦查与其他侦查、抓捕方式的方法。根据不同的要素可以对诱惑侦查进行不同的分类，其不同的排列组合下得到的不同类型的诱惑侦查合法性均有所区别。诱惑侦查因其涉及对不定公民进行人格测试，以及侦查机关滥用职权的可能性，导致对公民人格权的侵犯，并违背正当程序原则。本文建立在比例性原则的基础上，结合比较法研究结果和我国现实国情，对诱惑侦查的主体、对象、案件范围、方式和程度进行了限度的探讨和解释。比较法上，各国对诱惑侦查的违法性规定的判断标准、程序机制和责任后果有不同也有交叉。具体到我国的诱惑侦查法律规制上，由于目前在立法上该种侦查手段没有得到确认，实践操作上仅依靠最高法院的座谈纪要，因此，有必要对诱惑侦查进行法律机制上的控制。除了按照上述分析对诱惑侦查的主体、对象、案件范围、形式和程度进行明确规定外，在诉讼上，还应确立证明框架；在操作上，要严格审批、备案程序；在处罚上，要承认诱惑侦查成为免责事由，并建立一定的证据排除规则和对侦查机关和侦查人员的制裁规定。
Entrapment investigation refers to investigative measures acted by national investigators or their employees, as well as civil partners and co-defendants, which encourage and entrap the target to commit crimes by inducing target’s mens rea, or providing target with crime conditions or opportunities. It is usually be applied to detect crimes which are covert, highly organized, anti-investigation, victimless, or mafia like. Besides that, it can also be used to detect series vicious cases. The initiative, deceptiveness and inducibility are the differences between entrapment investigation and other detection methods. Classifying entrapment investigation according to different elements, various permutations leads to different results about the legitimacy of entrapment investigation.Because it has to do with personality test and the possibility of investigation agency abusing its power, entrapment investigation may lead to personality infringement and violation of due process. Based on the principle of proportionality, this paper takes studies in and abroad into consideration, and discusses entrapment investigation’s subjects, objects, case range, operate mode and limitation. From a comparative law perspective, foreign countries’ standards, procedures and liabilities have differences as well as common grounds. In our country, because of the blank of legislative recognition of various investigation methods, we can only rely on Supreme Court’s summary of discussion in practice. Therefore, legal control on entrapment investigation is a must. Despite all that, we should establish the framework of proof as for the procedure system. As for operation, strict examination and approval plus the filing process is needed. As for the penalty, we should recognize that entrapment investigation can be an exemption clause, and certain exclusive rule of evidence should be set, as well as sanctions against investigation agency or investigators.
