认罪认罚从宽的类型化与制度体系的再梳理  

Classification and Reorganization of Guilty Plea for Sentence Reduction

作　　者：施鹏鹏 Shi Pengpeng

机构地区：[1]中国政法大学证据科学研究院

出　　处：《比较法研究》2021年第5期117-134,共18页Journal of Comparative Law

基　　金：2021年度最高人民检察院检察理论研究课题“域外检察职能比较研究”(项目号:[GJ2021B08]);2021年北京社科基金规划项目专项重点项目“域外检察制度现代化研究”(项目号:21FXA001)的阶段性成果。

摘　　要："认罪认罚"在实体法、程序法、证据法及恢复性司法等不同的论域中具有不同的理论意涵,具体而言,可区分为四种不同类型的认罪认罚从宽,分别为:刑事实体法层面的认罪答辩、程序简约化层面的认罪答辩、作为证据补强的认罪答辩以及被告人与被害人的刑事和解。我国的认罪认罚从宽制度事实上将"认罪"作为程序繁简分流的唯一关键要素,而未区分程序面向的认罪认罚从宽和实体面向的认罪认罚从宽。这导致立法、理论与实践出现了不同维度的混同。实践表明,程序面向的认罪认罚有进一步完善的空间,实体面向的认罪认罚作为程序机制意义不大,协商性司法是重要的繁简分流程序机制,但并非唯一,可考虑设立更多类型的特殊程序,提高诉讼效率,节约司法资源。"Pleading guilty and accepting punishment" has different theoretical implications in different contexts of substantive law, procedural law, evidence law and restorative justice. Specifically, it can be divided into four different types: guilty plea in criminal substantive law, guilty plea in simplified procedures, guilty plea reinforced as evidence, and guilty plea as reconciliation between the defendant and the victim. In its application in China, "guilty plea" is regarded as the only key element for the differentiation between the complex and simple cases, without considering whether it is a procedural one or substantive one, which has led to confusion in theory and practice, especially in legislative practice. The procedural guilty plea in practice still leaves room for further improvement. The substantive "guilty plea" has little significance for the procedural mechanism, for the negotiated justice is an important but not the only mechanism for the differentiation between the complex and simple cases. In fact, more special procedures can be established to improve litigation efficiency and save judicial resources.

关 键 词：认罪认罚从宽 刑事实体法层面的认罪答辩 程序简约化层面的认罪答辩 实质真实 多元化的繁简分流程序机制 

分 类 号：D925.2[政治法律—诉讼法学]