认罪认罚从宽证明标准认识误区的驳正

The Correction of Proof Standards in the System Where the Criminal Suspect Admits Guilt and Accepts Punishment

认罪认罚案件证明标准是否排除合理怀疑的问题,学界存在三种学说:证明标准同等说,证明标准降低说,证明标准折中说。对认罪认罚从宽这一刑事法律制度的解释,既需要体现出该制度的独特价值,又应当大体符合底线正义和对效率的追求。现有的三种学说,皆失之偏至,要么使得这一制度显得冗余,要么为了效率牺牲正义。同等说坚持了正义,却无法解释认罪认罚制度的独特价值,使该制度的存在显得冗余;降低说误以为认罪认罚制度完全是效率思维的产物,忽视了该制度对正义的追求;折中说主张区分不同情况适用不同证明标准,但这种灵活把握的中庸提议始终未能提供合理、可行的区分原则。因而,需要对认罪认罚制度的证明标准既有学说进行驳正,走出关于证明标准的认识误区。综合考量,对认罪认罚制度的合理解释是,检察院在认罪认罚案件中的建议仅对法院在量刑上的自由裁量有约束力,而量刑上的自由裁量本来就与证明标准无关。

The question of the standard of proof in the system where the criminal suspect admits guilt and accepts punishment has been controversial in recent years.Regarding whether the standard of proof for such cases is to exclude reasonable doubt,the academics have formed three basic camps.However,the three existing theories are all biased,either making this system redundant or sacrificing justice for efficiency.Therefore,it is necessary to refute the existing theories of the proof standard of the criminal suspect admits guilt and accepts punishment system and get out of the misunderstanding about the proof standard.Taking a comprehensive consideration,the reasonable interpretation this system is that the recognizance to admit guilt and accept punishment is only binding on the court’s discretion in sentencing,and the discretion in sentencing has nothing to do with the standard of proof.