告别实质真实?——对德国刑事协商的制度考察  

Farewell to Material Truth?——A Study on Verdict Bargaining System of Germany

作　　者：李章仙 LI Zhang-xian(Postdoctoral Research Station,China University of Political Science and Law,Beijing,100088)

机构地区：[1]中国政法大学博士后流动站,北京100088

出　　处：《新疆大学学报（哲学社会科学版）》2022年第5期23-31,共9页Journal of Xinjiang University(Philosophy and Social Sciences)

基　　金：国家社会科学基金后期资助项目“德国刑事审判权运行机制研究”(19FFXB041)。

摘　　要：协商性司法是国际刑事司法改革的重要趋势,在德国主要表现为刑事协商制度。该制度与德国一贯奉行的实质真实传统存在着理论基础、诉讼价值和司法实践层面的冲突。德国联邦宪法法院通过判决明示,将刑事协商进行立法化并非是为了在传统诉讼模式外,再建立一个所谓“合意式诉讼模式”,而是要在继续坚持查明事实真相的基础上,通过审查自白自愿性、程序透明、过程记录以及判决说理等方式对刑事协商进行全面的程序控制。以此为鉴,我国刑事诉讼理论研究应当回归客观真实,坚持公正与真相的核心价值导向,强化司法官的客观义务,为澄清案件事实提供有效的程序保障。To develop consultative procedures for justice is an important trend of international criminal justice reform.In Germany,the verdict bargaining system bears them out.This new system is in conflict with the traditional German doctrines of material truth in terms of theoretical basis,procedural values and judicial practice.In related judgements,the German Federal Supreme Court clearly holds that the legislation of verdict bargaining in Germany does not intend to construct a new negotiating criminal procedural model outside the traditional procedures,but to carry out a comprehensive legal control on the verdict bargaining system through reviewing the confessions,making the hearing public,taking down a whole-course records and reasoning the verdicts on the premise of truth-finding.Taking this as a reference,the research of criminal procedure in China should return to focus on the objective truth,adhere to the core values of justice and truth,and strengthen the objective obligations of prosecutors and judges so as to provide an effective guarantee for finding the truth.

关 键 词：刑事诉讼 刑事协商 实质真实 客观真实 法律规制 

分 类 号：D915.3[政治法律—诉讼法学]