认罪认罚案件控辩协商的形式化问题研究  

A Study of the Formalized Prosecution-Defense Negotiation in Plea Leniency Cases

作　　者：李贵扬 王梓俨 LI Guiyang;WANG Ziyan(College of Humanities and Law,Shandong University of Science and Technology,Qingdao,Shandong 266590,China)

机构地区：[1]山东科技大学文法学院,山东青岛266590

出　　处：《山东科技大学学报（社会科学版）》2022年第5期47-56,共10页Journal of Shandong University of Science and Technology(Social Sciences)

基　　金：山东省人民检察院专题调研和理论研究重点课题(SD2022B10)。

摘　　要：认罪认罚案件中控辩协商形式化的弊端日渐显露,检察官主导下的协商存在压缩律师辩护空间的风险,控辩之间力量的失衡及信息资源不对称等使辩护方始终游离于协商之外,被追诉人认罪认罚的自愿性、控辩协商的合法性及认罪认罚从宽制度的正当性受到质疑。由于固有的控辩失衡问题、过度追求司法效率的价值导向、控辩双方信息资源的不对称、协商过程缺少监督机制及欠缺有效辩护等因素,致使实施认罪认罚从宽制度过程中不可避免地出现控辩协商形式化的风险,影响协商性司法的发展进程。目前,突破控辩协商的形式化,需要在现行制度运行的框架内寻求控辩双方实质性的共商协作,既应敦促律师积极行使辩护权,实现有效辩护;又需要检察官落实客观义务,规范公诉权的行使,构建权利与义务交互式的实质化控辩协商。The disadvantages of formalized prosecution-defense negotiation in plea leniency cases have become increasingly evident, with the risk that prosecutor-led negotiation reduces the defense space for the lawyers, there is an imbalance of power between the prosecution and the defense, and the inequality of information resources keeps the defense out of the negotiations. The voluntariness of the defendant, the legality of prosecution-defense negotiation and the legitimacy of the plea leniency system have been questioned. Due to the inherent imbalance in the prosecution and the defense, the orientation of excessive pursuit of judicial efficiency, the asymmetry of information resources between the prosecution and the defense, the lack of supervision mechanisms in the negotiation process as well as ineffective defense, the prosecution-defense negotiation in the process of implementing the plea leniency system is inevitably formalized, which affects the development process of consultative justice. At present, to break through the dilemma of formalized prosecution-defense negotiation, it is necessary to seek substantive collaboration between the prosecution and the defense within the framework of the current system, which should not only urge the lawyers to actively exercise their right and realize effective defense, but also urge the prosecutors to implement their objective obligation and standardize the exercise of public power, so as to realize an interactive substantive prosecution-defense negotiation on both right and obligation.

关 键 词：认罪认罚从宽制度 控辩协商 有效辩护 客观义务 

分 类 号：D915.3[政治法律—诉讼法学]