公诉案件当事人和解制度的实践检视与路径完善——基于二审裁判文书的实证研究  

Observation and Inspection of Victim-offender Reconciliation Practice of Public Prosecution Cases in China:An Empirical Study on the Adjudication Documents of Second Instance Trial

作　　者：王桂芳[1] WANG Guifang(Huazhong Science and Technology Law School)

机构地区：[1]华中科技大学法学院

出　　处：《法学家》2022年第4期128-145,195,共19页The Jurist

摘　　要：公诉案件当事人和解程序自2012年引入立法以来取得了一定成效,但对1210份二审程序裁判文书的实证分析显示,当事人和解程序在实践中面临罪名突破法定适用范围、一审和解从宽效果不彰、二审和解反噬一审、控辩审三方分歧逆增等问题。究其原因,除了实体法依据付之阙如、实践运作的路径依赖、和解自愿性程序保障不足外,判决还受制于审前强制措施。鉴于此,应从以下两方面进一步完善:一方面,填补实体法依据为和解从宽提供权力支撑;另一方面,应当逐渐扩充适用罪名范围、拓展审前非羁押化空间牵引法院之裁判、增补和解自愿性程序保障、后延二审赔偿评价至执行阶段。Although the victim-offender reconciliation procedure of public prosecution cases has achieved some success since it was introduced in the legislation in 2012,the empirical analysis of 1210 adjudication documents of the second instance procedure shows that it is faced with problems in practice,such as the breaking through the legal scope of application,the poor effect of leniency obtained by the defendant in the first instance,the second instance reconciliation eroding the first instance and the inverse increase of the contradictions and differences between prosecution,defense,and trial.In addition to the lack of substantive law basis,the path dependence in operation,and the insufficient guarantee of voluntariness.Pretrial criminal coercive measures also determine the result of the trial in a great degree.In summary,China should improve the system in the following two aspects:firstly,the criminal substantive law should provide powerful support for reconciliation.Secondly,the scopes for applications of reconciliation should be extended,pre-trial non custodial compulsory measures should be encouraged,voluntariness safeguarding mechanism should be reinforced,and the compensation evaluation of the second instance should be postponed to the enforcement stage.

关 键 词：刑事和解 二审程序 刑罚结构 强制措施 

分 类 号：D925.2[政治法律—诉讼法学]