认罪认罚从宽:中国化的协商性司法?

The Leniency System of Confessing Guilt and Punishing:The Prosecution-defense Negotiation System with Chinese Characteristics?

认罪认罚从宽制度具有控辩协商制度的性质,这几乎已经成为理论界的共识。通常认为,《刑事诉讼法》第201条第1款设定的“一般应当”之效力规范确立了认罪认罚从宽实质性控辩协商制度的地位。然而,通过对本条的规范分析可知,法官无论在案件事实的认定还是法律的适用上,皆不受控辩双方合意的罪名或量刑建议之拘束。控辩协商制度与我国审判机关的职权定位有着深刻矛盾,几无实效的“一般应当”仅具宣示意义而缺乏规范价值,基于“认罪认罚从宽”构建的控辩协商制度不具有实质性。实质性控辩协商制度的构建,要求法官对实体公正的职权主义追求有所退让、“真理符应论”部分让位于“真理共识论”,这与追求真实的主流社会文化、中国特色的司法责任制度存在无法调和的冲突。正因如此,“认罪认罚从宽”在未来也难以被改造为具有实质性的控辩协商制度。

The leniency system of confessing guilt and punishing is generally considered to have the nature of prosecution-defense negotiation,and the norm of"generally shall"'set by Article 201,paragraph 1 of the Criminal Procedure Law is its substantive embodiment.However,through the normative analysis of this article,judges are not bound by recommendations about crime or sentencing agreed upon by the prosecutor and the defendant in the determination of facts of the case or the application of the law.The prosecution-defense negotiation system is in profound contradiction with the positioning of Chinese judges.The"generally shall"'provision is only with declarative effect and without normative value,and the prosecution-defense negotiation system based on confessing guilt and punishing with leniency is not substantive.The construction of the substantive prosecution-defense negotiation system requires judges to give way to the pursuit of substantive justice and the"correspondence theory of truth"to partly give way to the"consensus theory of truth".This is in irreconcilable conflict with the mainstream social culture of pursue truth and China's judicial responsibility system.For these reasons,the system of confessing guilt and punishing with leniency would not be transformed into a substantive prosecution and defense negotiation system in the future.