德国刑事协商制度的新发展及其启示  

New Developments of Plea Bargaining in German and Its Implications

作　　者：高通[1] 

机构地区：[1]南开大学法学院

出　　处：《环球法律评论》2017年第3期152-172,共21页Global Law Review

基　　金：中央高校基本科研业务费资助项目"认罪认罚从宽制度试点实证研究"(63172062)的研究成果;南开大学亚洲研究中心资助

摘　　要：德国联邦宪法法院于2013年3月19日就协商制度合宪性作出判决,肯定了协商制度的合宪性,同时,对《德国刑事诉讼法》中的协商制度条款作出大量解释。这一判决在若干方面推动了德国协商制度的新发展,例如,明确法官发现实质真实义务的宪法渊源、强化了法官的职权调查制度、进一步限定协商制度的适用范围以及扩充法院承担透明和记录义务的内容。德国联邦宪法法院对协商制度也作出了若干方面的限制,理由在于该制度违反职权主义原则、违反透明和记录义务,协商量刑实践亦有违法律规定等。在我国建构认罪认罚从宽制度时,可在法官职权调查原则、记录和透明义务、防范量刑"剪刀差"以及上诉机制等方面借鉴德国协商制度的经验。German Constitutional Court upheld the constitutionality of the plea bargain- ing between the court and parties on 19 March 2013. The judgment gave a large number of ex- planations of the plea bargaining provisions in Germany Criminal Procedural Law, so as to keep a close eye on further developments of the plea bargaining system. The judgment imposes some new restrictions on plea bargaining, such as making the truth-finding obligation a constitutional obligation, strengthening the judge＇ s truth-finding obligation, restricting the scope of plea bar- gaining, and expanding the obligation of recording and transparency. When establishing the sys- tem of leniency based on peccavi, China should learn from various principles and systems of plea bargaining in Germany, including the principle of comprehensive ex propio motu investiga- tion, recording and transparency, prohibition of sanktionsschere and the system of appeal.

关 键 词：德国宪法法院 协商制度 职权主义 认罪认罚 诉讼效率 

分 类 号：D951.6[政治法律—法学] DD914