Viewpoint | Application of AI in Public Security Organs Handling Public Security Cases

The recent explosion of science and technology and investment circles reminds me of the "chicken flying" in Uncle Kai's "Pocket Detective", a "eggshell spaceship" from an alien who often hides in the pocket of the child Ai Xiaopo. When encountering a case, he will provide Ai Xiaopo with professional knowledge in different aspects and help Ai Xiaopo solve various cases by transmitting sound into secret, help him realize his dream of being a little detective-because he has recently contacted the public security organs to handle more public security cases, I deeply feel the pressure of the police in handling cases by the grassroots public security organs, and at the same time, I also have a deep understanding of the public security organs in the process of handling public security cases. Some problems. As a result of work, I think that if our police handling cases also have "chicken flying" (AI, artificial intelligence), then both the efficiency and quality of handling cases should be improved, and the work pressure of the police handling cases should also be reduced. It is a pleasure to think about it.

At present, the main contradiction faced by the grass-roots public security organs in handling public security cases is the contradiction between the insufficient police force and the increasing number of cases. This contradiction not only leads to the inevitable flaws in the handling procedures of some cases, but also often improper in the substantive handling.

1. "Unique" in investigation and evidence collection"

Article 52 of the provisions on the procedures for handling administrative cases by public security organs stipulates that when public security organs conduct inquiry, identification, inspection, investigation, implementation of administrative compulsory measures and other investigation and evidence collection work, the people's police shall not be less than two people, and shall show their law enforcement identity.

This is actually the Achilles heel of the public security organs when handling public security cases.

The police station is the main agency for handling public security cases. Due to insufficient police force, it is common for a policeman or a policeman to lead a police assistant to investigate and collect evidence, especially to make interrogation transcripts.

2. "Deprivation of Rights" in Identification and Testing"

Article 97 of the provisions on the procedures for handling public security cases by public security organs stipulates that the people's police handling cases shall examine the appraisal opinions. For the appraisal opinions used as evidence after examination, the public security organ shall, within five days from the date of receipt of the appraisal opinions, deliver a copy of the appraisal opinions to the suspect and the infringed person. If the illegal suspect or the infringed person disagrees with the appraisal opinion, he may submit an application for re-appraisal within three days from the date of receiving the copy of the appraisal opinion, and the re-appraisal shall be carried out after the approval of the public security organ at or above the county level.

In some cases, after the case-handling agency delivers the appraisal opinions to the illegal suspect and the victim, it does not reserve a three-day time limit for the illegal suspect and the victim to apply for re-appraisal to make a punishment decision; in other cases, when the case-handling agency conducts on-site drug use testing on illegal suspects, the time for collecting test samples and on-site testing is not at the time of the crime but before the punishment decision is made, some even make a penalty decision without setting aside a three-day deadline for the tested person to apply for experimental testing after the pre-punishment notification procedure; the delivery of the above-mentioned appraisal opinions or test reports not only does not conform to the provisions of the case handling procedure, but also deprives the parties of the right to apply for re-appraisal.

3, the statement, defense review of the "mix"

Article 94 of the Public Security Administration Punishment Law stipulates that before making a decision on public security administration punishment, the public security organ shall inform the person who violates the public security administration of the facts, reasons and basis for the public security administration punishment, and the person who violates the public security administration shall have the right to state and defend. The public security organ must fully listen to the opinions of the person who violates the public security management, and shall review the facts, reasons and evidence put forward by the person who violates the public security management; if the facts, reasons or evidence put forward by the person who violates the public security management are established, the public security organ shall adopt them.

Although in most cases, the offender's statement and defense will not change the punishment result, so the pre-punishment notification and review procedures for the statement and defense are mostly mere formality in essence. However, even so, formally speaking, the pre-punishment notification, statement and defense and review are also independent procedures, that is, when the offender makes a statement and defense, the case-handling organ should first complete the review and inform the parties of the review opinions, form a program closed loop before you can continue with other programs.

In some cases, the case-handling organ may, out of caution or simplification of procedures or other considerations, notify the offender to the police station for a final investigation and inquiry before the punishment decision is made, and then inform the offender of the review opinions during the investigation and inquiry. If the review opinion is to inform the offender at the end of the investigation and inquiry, then we can regard the investigation and inquiry as an element of the review, and there is nothing wrong with the case-handling organ informing the offender of the review opinion through oral notification and making a record. However, if the review opinion is to inform the offender at the beginning of the investigation and inquiry, and then conduct the investigation and inquiry involving the facts of the case, in fact, the review procedure is confused with the investigation procedure, which violates the procedural provisions of punishment (including notification before punishment) after the end of the investigation in Article 95 of the Public Security Administration punishment Law.

4. "Send but not reach" when the instrument is delivered"

Article 36 of the "Regulations on the Procedures for Handling Administrative Cases by Public Security Organs" stipulates that the service of legal documents shall first be served directly. If the person to be served or the person to be served refuses to accept or refuse to sign and fingerprint, the person to be served may make audio and video recordings of the refusal, leave the document at the person to be served, indicate the reason for the refusal and the date of service on the legal document attached to the roll, and the person to be served shall sign or fingerprint the document, which shall be deemed to be served. At the same time, Article 127 of the "Procedural Provisions" requires that if there is a victim in a public security case, the public security organ shall serve a copy of the decision on the victim within two days from the date of making the decision not to impose administrative punishment or punishment. If it cannot be served, it shall be indicated.

The case-handling organ usually notifies the party concerned to sign for the document at the scene of the police station. If the party concerned is present, the police station can synchronize audio and video recording due to monitoring, so there is generally no problem in the procedure of whether the party concerned signs for the document or not. However, if the parties are not present and refuse to accept or refuse to sign, in one case, the case-handling personnel will directly indicate in the attached document on the basis of refusing to sign on the premise of informing the parties by telephone of the contents of the document, and in one case, the case-handling personnel will indicate in the attached document after trying to deliver directly and being rejected or refused to sign. In any case, the investigators do not standardize the audio and video recording of the rejection or rejection of the visa. Moreover, in some cases, there are also cases in which the sender does not sign or one person signs for the rejection or rejection of the visa. Illegal procedures lead to failure to deliver. In addition, when the decision is served on the victim, some cases still exceed the two-day deadline.

5. "Haster is not fast" when handling fast"

Articles 40 and 47 of the Regulations on the Procedures for Handling Administrative Cases by Public Security Organs stipulate that for administrative cases where summary procedures are not applicable, but the facts are clear, the illegal suspect voluntarily recognizes the wrong and punishes, and there is no objection to the illegal facts and the application of the law, The public security organ shall make a decision within 48 hours after the suspect arrives.

The fundamental purpose of fast handling is to improve the efficiency of handling cases. In some cases, the case-handling organ does not carry out the investigation in time after receiving the case, but handles the case quickly on the 29th or even 30th day when the time limit for handling the case is about to expire. According to the stipulation that "the illegal suspect shall make a decision within 48 hours after he arrives at the case", as long as the illegal suspect has not arrived at the case before, it does not seem to be illegal to deal with it. However, if the case-handling organ has not summoned the illegal suspect during the period from receiving the case to handling, and the illegal suspect has not fled, then the case-handling organ has handled it so quickly, which is obviously out of standard in procedure.

In addition, some cases can be handled quickly. If the illegal facts are not established, they will not be punished. However, because there is no condition for "the illegal suspect to voluntarily admit the mistake and admit the punishment", some case handling organs are hesitant and do not apply the fast handling.

1, the investigation and evidence collection of "painting as a prison"

Article 54 of the "Administrative Punishment Law" stipulates that if an administrative agency discovers that a citizen, legal person, or other organization has committed an act that should be subject to administrative punishment in accordance with the law, it must conduct a comprehensive, objective and fair investigation and collect relevant evidence.

In some cases, the case-handling organ presumes that there is no mistake (or error), and the investigation and evidence collection is a prison. For example, for peeping behavior that is not confirmed by direct objective evidence, the case-handling agency presumes that there is no mistake, and the investigation and evidence collection is limited to the scope of the scene. Even if the on-site evidence cannot confirm the time when the suspect enters and exits the scene, it is impossible to presume the motivation of his behavior, and even There may be self-contradictions, and do not go beyond the scene to conduct a comprehensive investigation and evidence collection.

2. "Free Heart Certificate" when the plot is determined"

Article 50 of the Regulations on the Procedures for Handling Administrative Cases by Public Security Organs stipulates that the facts of the case that need to be investigated include: (1) the basic information of the illegal suspect; whether the (II) illegal act exists; whether the (III) illegal act is committed by the illegal suspect; (IV) the time, place, means, consequences and other circumstances of the illegal act; (V) whether the illegal suspect is legally heavier, lighter, mitigated and not subject to administrative punishment; (VI) other facts relevant to the case.

In some cases, the case-handling organs have made mistakes in determining the amount of punishment, and are completely free to prove the circumstances. For example, if the offender voluntarily surrendered, even if the facts are clear, some case-handling agencies will not recognize it; and for those who beat others temporarily due to impulse, if multiple people are involved, some case-handling agencies will determine that the offender constitutes a gang beating. It is true that there is a certain degree of subjectivity in the identification of the gang plot, but the subjective initiative should respect the objective facts. In fact, the Jing'an Branch of the Shanghai Public Security Bureau determined that Wang Moumou and other four people who assaulted others on Nanjing West Road, Shanghai on January 11, 2023 (does not constitute a gang), which provides a good reference for similar cases. standard.

3, the application of the law when the "mechanically applied"

In some cases, the case-handling organs, in accordance with the penalty claim, apply the law rigidly. For example, for those who beat others in groups, according to the provisions of Article 43 of the Public Security Administration punishment Law, they shall be detained for not less than 10 days but not more than 15 days, and a fine of not less than 500 yuan but not more than 1000 yuan shall be imposed. In order to balance the punishment or not to correct the wrong fact when ordered by the reconsideration organ to make a new punishment decision, some case-handling organs only change the discretionary result (such as detention for 8 days below the statutory penalty) when wrongly determining the fact that the offender constitutes a gang beating others, That is, if the violation of public security management is particularly minor, the punishment shall be mitigated. The more serious (or serious) and particularly minor circumstances, although in some cases they go hand in hand, in most cases they are clearly contradictory.

4. No written decision when no penalty is imposed

Article 91 of the "Public Security Administration Punishment Law" stipulates that public security management penalties shall be decided by the public security organs of the people's government at or above the county level; among them, warnings and fines of less than 500 yuan may be decided by the police station. Article 95 stipulates that after the investigation of a public security case is completed, if no punishment is imposed in accordance with the law, or if the illegal facts cannot be established, the public security organ shall make a decision not to impose punishment.

In some cases, the case-handling organs do not make a written decision on those who will not be punished. For example, according to the provisions of Article 91 of the Public Security Administration punishment Law, some police stations only make decisions on warnings and fines of less than 500 yuan, and there are no clear provisions on the causes of non-punishment, so they take the initiative to give in to district sub-bureaus or county (city) bureaus. The result of humility is that grandma does not hurt my uncle and does not love him. Finally, she simply does not make a written decision on those who will not be punished. The internal balance has been balanced, but the result has directly hindered the victim's right to file administrative reconsideration or administrative litigation according to the written decision.

It is true that at present, there are still some problems in the independent application of AI, whether technically, legally or ethically, but there are obviously no obstacles to its application as an auxiliary tool; moreover, with the development of AI technology and the maturity of application scenarios, it will be the general trend that it will serve the public security organs more widely in handling public security cases in the future.

AI, as an intelligent tool, first solves the problem of audio and video recording in the whole process of handling cases by public security organs through wearable forms, and in a certain sense can make up for the defects in handling procedures caused by insufficient police force in handling cases. Secondly, for cases that apply summary procedures and fast handling, the investigation and evidence collection method can be simplified through audio and video recording to complete the investigation and inquiry of the persons involved in the case in a timely manner, it not only avoids the possibility of collusion of the parties in the investigation and inquiry after the fact, but also increases the proportion of applying summary procedures and handling cases quickly.

As a legal think tank, AI can provide "chicken flying" instant professional consultation for the police handling cases through voice interaction even if it cannot use brain-computer interaction, thus reducing work errors. Moreover, because AI participates in the whole process of case handling, especially on-site handling, understands the case and grasps the case data, it can provide case analysis and case handling scheme for the police handling cases, improve the efficiency of case handling organs while improving the quality of case handling.

Even, with the optimization of AI solutions, the proportion of on-site mediation cases may also be increased.