作者：张可
作者介绍：中国政法大学刑事司法学院副教授，法学博士
出版日期：2026年4月9日
内容提要 我国《刑事诉讼法》未直接使用“侦查期限”这一术语，而是通过“侦查羁押期限”对侦查阶段的办案时间进行规范。这意味着只要犯罪嫌疑人处于未被羁押的状态，侦查机关至少在规范层面获得了无穷无尽的办案时间。在《刑事诉讼法》的立法进程中，侦查期限的规范化经历了较大的争议和起伏而最终搁置，有着比较复杂的历史原因。而今，期限利益的显性化、办案时间的可期化、程序规范的精密化使得侦查期限规范化已经具有必要性、可行性和合理性。比较法中的速审权理论在我国制定法中有着广阔的解释空间，可以成为我国侦查期限规范化的理论基础。综合考虑我国的制度环境和司法实践，侦查期限规范化的本土方案包括明确侦查期限、构建时间裁决机制以及完善期限救济的配套保障。
关键词 侦查期限 侦查羁押期限 速审权 法定期限 时间裁决 诉讼救济
Abstract: China’s Criminal Procedure Law does not directly use the term ‘investigation period’, but regulates case handling time during the investigation stage through the ‘investigation detention period’. This means that as long as the suspect is not in custody, the investigation organ is granted unlimited time to handle cases at least at the normative level. In the legislative process of the Criminal Procedure Law, the standardization of the investigation period has undergone significant controversy and fluctuations, and has ultimately been shelved due to complex historical reasons. Nowadays, the explicitization of period benefits, the predictability of case handling time, and the refinement of procedural norms have made the standardization of investigation period necessary, feasible, and reasonable. The theory of expedited trial in comparative law has broad explanatory space in China’s statutory law, which can serve as the theoretical basis for standardizing the investigation period in China. Taking into account China’s institutional environment and judicial practice, the local plan for standardizing the investigation period should include clarifying investigation period, establishing a time ruling mechanism, and improving the supporting guarantees for period relief.