刑事被告人答辩制度之构建

Construction of the Criminal Defendant's Plea System

罪状认否意义上的被告人答辩制度尚未在我国刑事诉讼中设计完成,而认罪认罚从宽制度框架下的程序分流机制令庭前被告人答辩制度之构建成为必要。被告人答辩制度应为庭前会议的一种制度配套,其所寄身的程序空间应与庭前会议合二为一。在认罪认罚从宽制度改革背景下,被告人答辩的对象已经不再局限于公诉事实,而是扩大到了量刑建议。被告人答辩的基本功能在于程序分流,其本质上区别于具有证据属性的被告人供述与辩解。有罪答辩并不免除控方的证明责任,亦不能限制法院的实体裁判权,因此与民事诉讼中的自认形相近而实相远。在标准化的基础上,可将我国被告人答辩的类型分为认罪答辩、无罪答辩、拒绝答辩、轻罪答辩以及承认案件事实的答辩。对被告人的有罪答辩,应当进行前提性的事实基础审查,并确保被告人答辩的自愿性与正当性。

Currently China has not yet completed the design of the defendant＇ s plea system in the sense of plea of guilty or not guilty, which was made necessary by the procedural diversion mechanism under the institutional framework of leniency on admission of guilt and acceptance of punishment. The defendant＇ s plea system is in itself a kind of supporting system of pretrial conference and its proce- dural space should be merged with that of pretrial conference. In the institutional context of leniency on admission of guilt and acceptance of punishment, the scope of objects of the defendant＇ s plea is no longer limited to the facts of public prosecution, but has been extended to ＂sentencing suggestions＂. The basic function of the defendant＇ s plea is procedural diversion. In essence, the defendant＇ s plea is essentially different from the defendant＇ s confession or explanation, which is of the nature of evi- dence. The plea of guilty does not exempt the prosecution from its burden of proof, nor does it limit the court＇s substantive jurisdiction. Therefore, it is only superficially similar to, but actually very different from, admission in civil litigation. On the basis of standardization, the defendant＇ s plea can be divided into plea of guilty, plea of not guilty, refusal to plea, plea of misdemeanor and plea of recognition of the facts of the case. The defendant＇ s plea of guilty should be subject to factual review so as to ensure its voluntariness and legitimacy.