刑事速裁程序的功能性反思——兼论有限书面审之提倡

Functional Reflection on the Procedure of Quick Adjudication in Criminal Cases—On the Promotion of Limited Written Trial

在认罪认罚从宽制度的宏观背景下,刑事诉讼程序首先呈现为以被追诉人认罪认罚与否为界的二元程序结构。其中,作为其基本适用程序之一,刑事速裁程序一方面肇因于实体层面的犯罪控制需要所导致的犯罪圈不断扩大,另一方面则源始于程序层面的诉讼效率考量所要求的程序再度简化。从功能特征上看,在新刑事诉讼法背景下,由于协商性司法模式与认罪认罚从宽制度共同作用于当前的刑事速裁程序,故前者项下的“诉讼合意”及“程序从简”与后者当中的“实体从宽”及“程序从宽”均应体现为实体及程序上不同的具体利益优待。为此,应在原普通—简易—速裁的三级程序简化基础上,在刑事速裁程序内部再做书面审与开庭审二次简化改革的同时,整体上最终形成以普通—简易—速裁—书面审为主线的四级程序简化进路,并将被追诉人程序选择的自愿性与真实性作为其诉权保障的核心要素加以考量。

Under the macro background of the leniency system of confession and punishment,the criminal procedure first presents a dualistic procedural structure,which is divided by whether the accused pleads guilty and punishment or not.Among them,as one of its basic application procedures,the criminal quick adjudication procedure on the one hand is due to the continuous expansion of the criminal circle caused by the need of crime control at the substantive level,on the other hand,it originates from the simplification of the procedure required by the procedural efficiency consideration.From the perspective of functional characteristics,under the background of the new criminal procedure law,due to the joint effect of the consultative judicial mode and the leniency system of guilty plea and punishment,the"agreement of litigation"and"simplification of procedure"under the former and the"leniency of entity"and"leniency of procedure"in the latter should be embodied in different and specific benefits in substance and procedure.Therefore,on the basis of the simplification of the original three-level procedure of ordinary,simple and quick adjudication,the second simplified reform of written trial and open trial should be carried out within the criminal quick adjudication procedure.At the same time,the four level procedure simplification approach with the main line of ordinary,simple and quick adjudication and written trial should be finally formed,and the voluntariness and authenticity of the procedure selection of the accused should be taken as the core elements of the protection of the right of action quantity.