日本合意制度述评

Comments on Japan’s Consensual System

2016年日本《刑事诉讼法》增设的合意制度与2018年我国《刑事诉讼法》增设的"协力型"认罪认罚从宽制度同属他人归罪型控辩协商制度,日本合意制度的经验和教训可为我国该制度操作规程的完善提供重要启示。日本合意制度的入法因缘于从事后处理型到危机管理型的司法理念转变,从义务主义到功利主义的司法文化演变,从传统证据收集方法到新型证据收集方法的司法实践改变。日本合意制度以特定的财政经济类、药物枪械类犯罪为适用对象,以协议与合意为程序,依托于犯罪嫌疑人的协力行为和检察官的宽大处理行为而运行,在遵循双方法定义务的同时,提供退出机制予以保障。但从适用合意制度的戈恩案、美浓案来考察,在检察官和辩护律师的职业能力、证言真实性的审查等方面存在典型问题。基于此,我国"协力型"认罪认罚从宽制度的完善应从创设新型证据方法、建构运行机制及准备诉讼应对等方面进行优化。

In 2018,China’s Criminal Procedure Law added a consultation system of prosecution and defense based on the incrimination of others,but there is still a gap in the operating procedures of this system in terms of legal provisions. Reviewing the extraterritorial legislation,the Japanese consensual system added to Japan’s Criminal Procedure Law in 2016 belongs to the prosecution and defense negotiation system based on the incrimination of others. Based on the high similarity of criminal justice reform between China and Japan in recent years,the rich experience and lessons of Japan’s consensual system have great enlightenment significance for the perfection of China’s system. Therefore,it is necessary to make an analysis of Japan’s consensual system from three aspects:its origin,evolution,operation mechanism and case study. Furthermore,it provides suggestions on China’s system from three aspects:the new requirements of defense lawyers’ professional ability,the matching review mechanism of testimony credibility,and the application of the system in enterprise compliance.