报复检控防范视角下检察内部监督制约之完善  

Improvement of Internal Supervision and Control of Procuratorial Organs from The Perspective of Prevention of Prosecutorial Vindictiveness

作　　者：董哲 Dong Zhe(School of Law,People's Public Security University of China,Beijing 100038,China)

机构地区：[1]中国人民公安大学法学院,北京100038

出　　处：《政法学刊》2023年第1期99-107,共9页Journal of Political Science and Law

基　　金：北京市人民检察院2020年检察理论课题“认罪认罚中‘报复性’思维的偏误与纠正”(BJ2020B30)。

摘　　要：随着认罪认罚从宽制度为我国刑事诉讼法所确立,检察机关在其中的主导作用更加凸显,相关实践难题也逐渐暴露出来。其中,惩罚被追诉人主张诉讼权利的“报复检控”,虽源于美国辩诉交易实践,但因同为协商性司法所固有的结构性风险,加之种种期待性利益的驱动,在我国认罪认罚从宽制度中亦有了更多可及性。实践中,检察机关针对被追诉人悔约上诉行为的跟进式抗诉,就是“报复检控”思维的一种潜在异化。目前,检察机关虽有相对系统的内部监督制约机制,但因未对该问题予以充分关注导致出现了阙如。应致力于促进检察官坚守客观义务,在实践中激活和完善内部监督制约机制,推动认罪认罚从宽制度行稳致远。As the leniency system of pleading guilty and punishment has been established by the Criminal Procedure Law of China, the leading role of procuratorial organs in the system has become more prominent, and the relevant practical problems have been gradually exposed. The prosecutorial vindictiveness, used to punish the prosecuted people for claiming litigation rights, is derived from the practice of plea bargaining in the United States. However,there’s more accessibility of prosecutorial vindictiveness in the system of pleading guilty and punishment because of the inherent structural risk in consultative judicial and kinds of expected benefits. The follow-up counterappeal against the prosecuted is the potential alienation of prosecutorial vindictiveness thinking. Practically speaking, the procuratorial organs have already established relatively systematic internal supervision mechanism, but fail to pay attention to that problem. It is necessary to promote the procurator to stick to objective obligation, and activate and improve the internal supervision mechanism so as to promote the leniency system of pleading guilty and punishment.

关 键 词：认罪认罚 上诉 报复检控 跟进式抗诉 内部监督制约 

分 类 号：D926.3[政治法律—法学]