值班律师再审视:与认罪认罚从宽的捆绑与解绑

Reexamine Duty Counsels:Binding or Unbinding to the System of Leniency on Admission of Guilt and Acceptance of Punishment

关于值班律师之定位,其到底是“法律帮助”的角色,还是“辩护人”的角色,目前理论界和实务界争议较大。产生这一争议的根源在于,值班律师与认罪认罚从宽制度的契合度并不高,值班律师难以适应复杂严重案件的认罪认罚工作,难以全面获知认罪认罚案件信息,且在侦查阶段和审判阶段的功能受限。基于此,正视值班律师的应然定位,脱离认罪认罚从宽的制度桎梏,是发挥其独特功能的必然路径。未来,我国应当明确值班律师适用范围之普惠性,明确其工作性质之即时性,并明确其职能定位的独特性。

Duty counsels'biggest controversy is whether they are legal assistors or defenders.The main reason of the controversy is that duty counsels are not adapted to the system of leniency on admission of guilt and acceptance of punishment.Duty counsels are not suitable for handling serious cases.It is difficult for duty counsels to fully understand the information of the cases.And the role of duty counsels in investigation and trial is very limited.Thus,duty counsels should be unbound to the system of leniency on admission of guilt and acceptance of punishment,and form a unique role.To be more specific,its scope of application should be more inclusive,its way of working should be more immediacy,and its extent of authority should be clearer.