回归权利:认罪认罚从宽制度的适用困境及理论反思  

Return to Rights: The Application Dilemma and Theoretical Reflection of the Pleading Guilty and Accepting Punishments with Leniency

作　　者：闵春雷[1] Min Chunlei

机构地区：[1]吉林大学法学院

出　　处：《法学杂志》2019年第12期1-11,F0002,共12页Law Science Magazine

基　　金：国家社会科学基金重点项目“认罪认罚从宽制度的程序理论研究”(项目编号:17AFX015)的阶段性成果

摘　　要：2018年《刑事诉讼法》将认罪认罚从宽作为基本原则予以确立,意味着认罪认罚在刑事诉讼中应得到普遍适用。但从该制度的适用情况看,存在着适用范围局限、值班律师虚置、量刑建议单方决定等问题,究其原因是对该制度的法律性质缺乏明晰认识,将认罪认罚当作司法机关的权力看待,使认罪认罚成为办案机关对被追诉人的"恩赐"。故应回归权利,将认罪认罚作为被追诉人的重要权利加以明确和保障。认罪认罚权利是程序权利与实体权利的统一,作为程序性权利包含被追诉人的知悉权、程序选择权、反悔权及上诉权;在实体上则是通过认罪认罚应当获得从宽处理的权利。与此相对应,司法机关应为认罪认罚权利提供必要的保障和救济,应以权利为基点确立新型合作式诉讼模式,探索构建独立的认罪认罚程序以提高程序的公正性。The 2018 Criminal Procedure Law establishes Pleading Guilty and Accepting Punishments with Leniency(PGAPL) as a basic principle, which means that the PGAPL should be universally applied in criminal proceedings. However, judging from the application of the system, there are some problems such as the limitation of application scope, the invalidation of the lawyer on duty and the unilateral decision of sentencing proposal, etc. The reason is that there is no clear understanding of the legal nature of the system, and the PGAPL is regarded as the power of the judicial organ, making it a "charity" to the accused by the case-handling organ. The PGAPL which is the unity of procedural rights and substantive rights should been taken as an important right of the accused. As a procedural right, it includes the accused’s right to know, the right to choose the procedure, the right of rescission and the right to appeal. In substance, the right to lenient treatment should be obtained through PGAPL. Correspondingly, judicial organs should provide necessary protection and relief for the right to PGAPL. We should establish a new type of cooperative litigation mode based on rights, and explore the construction of an independent pleading guilty and accepting punishments procedure to improve the fairness of the procedure.

关 键 词：认罪认罚权利 实体从宽与程序从简 合作式诉讼模式 

分 类 号：D92[政治法律—法学]