“认假罪”:那些事实无罪的有罪答辩人

发布时间：2018-05-11 14:25

本文选题：认假罪 + 辩诉交易　；参考：《中国刑事法杂志》2017年05期

【摘要】：最近几起引人注目的案件,包括西孟菲斯三人组案(the West Memphis Three)在内,再次反映了一个现象:事实上无罪被告人竟表示认罪。更令人不安的是,这一现象很多时候发生在追诉方进入答辩阶段时明知被告无罪或者至少被高度怀疑无罪的情况下。无罪被告人通常(但不总是)在以下三种情形做有罪答辩:第一,触犯轻微刑事犯罪,快速认罪提供了免除牢狱之灾的钥匙;第二,案件的被告人被错误定罪,说服其上诉并提出辩诉交易,以确保其被立即或尽快释放;第三,如果被告人不认罪,他们将受到严厉的惩罚。另外,以下三个主要因素促成此项刑事司法制度——大量无罪被告人对自己未犯下的罪行认罪。其一,观念上认为所有的被告人都应该认罪;其二,当前严厉的刑事犯罪量刑制度;其三,辩诉交易的成因在于,在很大程度上,这是一个不受管制的领域。本文讨论了无罪被告人为获得释放做有罪答辩,从而"认假罪"(unexonerated)的案例;探究了"导致"无罪被告人认罪的因素;最后提出了几项可供当前刑事司法制度采纳的建议,以防范或至少改善无罪被告人被迫认罪的困境。
[Abstract]:Several recent high-profile cases, including the West Memphis trio case and the West Memphis Three) case, once again reflect the fact that the accused pleaded not guilty. What is more disturbing is that this often occurs when the prosecution enters the plea stage knowing that the accused is innocent or at least highly suspected. The acquittal defendant usually (but not always) pleads guilty in three situations: first, a minor criminal offence, a quick plea provides the key to escape from prison, and second, the defendant in the case is wrongly convicted, Persuade him to appeal and file a plea deal to ensure his immediate or prompt release; third, if the accused pleads not guilty, they will be severely punished. In addition, three main factors contribute to the criminal justice system-a large number of innocent defendants plead guilty to crimes they did not commit. First, the concept that all defendants should plead guilty; second, the current strict criminal sentencing system; third, the cause of plea bargaining is, to a large extent, this is an unregulated field. This paper discusses the case of the innocent defendant who pleads guilty in order to be released, thus "pleading false"); explores the factors that "lead" the innocent defendant to plead guilty; and finally puts forward several suggestions that can be adopted by the current criminal justice system. To prevent or at least ameliorate the plight of the innocent accused being forced to plead guilty.
【作者单位】：美国康奈尔大学法学院;北京交通大学法学院;中国政法大学法学院;
【分类号】：D925.2

【相似文献】