认罪自愿性的实证考察

发布时间：2018-10-12 13:55

【摘要】：自愿认罪有两个标准:一是客观方面,被追诉人在诉讼阶段的权利是否受到了明显的不法侵害;二是主观方面,被追诉人是否对自己的行为性质及认罪后果有充分了解。实证考察表明,被追诉人与法律职业人对"认罪"的理解基本相同,但是在群体内部对认罪的理解又有不同。被追诉人可能为了量刑优惠而违心认罪,在认罪的情况下对证据审查和辩护律师的作用不够重视。被追诉人认罪的自愿性是困扰司法实践的一个难题。由于适用的诉讼程序不同,法律职业群体对认罪自愿性的关注程度有所不同,对认罪认罚案件证明标准的把握也出现了不一致。违心认罪有三个原因:被追诉人基于量刑诱惑违心认罪,司法机关偏离认罪认罚从宽试点的目标进行操作,被追诉人的辩护权不能得到有效落实。因此,应当建立权利告知制度,赋予被追诉人程序选择权,设立值班律师制度,建立程序回转机制。
[Abstract]:There are two criteria for voluntary confession: one is whether the right of the accused person in the litigation stage has been infringed by obvious illegal; the other is whether the accused person has a full understanding of the nature of his behavior and the consequences of his confession in the subjective aspect. The empirical investigation shows that the prosecution and the legal profession have the same understanding of "guilty plea", but the understanding of confession is different within the group. The prosecution may plead guilty in favor of sentencing, and pay less attention to the examination of evidence and the role of defense counsel in the case of confession. The voluntary nature of the accused pleading guilty is a difficult problem puzzling the judicial practice. Due to the difference of the applicable procedure, the legal profession groups pay different attention to the voluntary nature of guilty plea, and the assurance of the standard of proof in the case of guilty plea and punishment also appears inconsistent. There are three reasons for pleading guilty: the accused person based on the temptation of sentencing, the judicial organs deviate from the goal of lenient admission and punishment to operate, and the accused person's right to defense can not be effectively implemented. Therefore, it is necessary to establish the system of informing rights, endow the accused with the right of choice, set up the system of duty lawyer and establish the mechanism of procedural turnaround.
【作者单位】：北京市人民检察院第一分院;
【基金】：中国法学会部级法学研究重点课题“刑事诉讼中认罪认罚从宽司法实证研究”[CLS(2015)B04]的部分研究成果
【分类号】：D925.2

【相似文献】