{"id":237,"thumbnail":"https://jilailawyer.com//rails/active_storage/blobs/eyJfcmFpbHMiOnsibWVzc2FnZSI6IkJBaHBBc0VEIiwiZXhwIjpudWxsLCJwdXIiOiJibG9iX2lkIn19--66b1006881a4e2154010a4703c82baa613a033b8/%E7%BB%A7%E6%9D%A5%E4%B8%9A%E7%BB%A9.jpg","title_zh":"认罪认罚制度与司法公信力","title_en":"The System of Pleading Guilty and Punishment and Judicial Credibility","content_zh":"\u003csection powered-by=\"xiumi.us\"\u003e\r\n\u003csection\u003e\r\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-size:16px;\"\u003e作者\u0026nbsp;| 继来常州 张骏 律师\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003c/section\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003csection\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/section\u003e\r\n\u003c/section\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003csection\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-size:16px;\"\u003e认罪认罚制度从开始试点至今已近6年，作为以审判为中心的诉讼制度改革配套制度之一，在司法实务中正发挥不可小觑的作用。根据近期发布的2021年全国检察机关主要办案数据显示，\u0026ldquo;\u003cu\u003e已办理的审查起诉案件中，适用认罪认罚从宽制度审结人数占同期审结人数的85%以上；检察机关提出确定刑量刑建议占量刑建议提出数的90%以上；对检察机关提出的量刑建议，法院采纳人数占同期提出量刑建议数的97%以上。\u003c/u\u003e\u0026rdquo;这些数据足以反映出认罪认罚制度在检察机关贯彻落实的现状。\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/section\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003csection\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/section\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003csection\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-size:16px;\"\u003e但是在认罪认罚制度执行的过程中也暴露出不少的问题，如果司法机关不及时反思，\u003cstrong\u003e笔者坚信长此以往必将对司法公信力造成破坏。\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/section\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003csection\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/section\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003csection\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-size:16px;\"\u003e为何得出以上结论？\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/section\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003csection\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/section\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003csection\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-size:16px;\"\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e第一，从具结书来看。\u003c/strong\u003e具结书虽然不是合同，但系检察机关与嫌疑人、被告人就量刑进行协商的结果，而且是检察机关出具的正式文书，具结书需要随起诉书一起移送审判机关，且《刑事诉讼法》也明确规定，认罪认罚后，检察机关的量刑建议一般应当采纳，也就是说采纳是原则，不采纳是例外。这是法律的明确规定，司法机关应当不折不扣的遵守，而不是话语权的问题，更不是求刑权侵犯到审判权的问题。\u003cstrong\u003e嫌疑人、被告人签署具结书后，如果没有新的指控事实或者量刑情节，检察机关不管何种原因随意对具结书中的量刑建议进行调整，特别是加重量刑，这将使嫌疑人、被告人觉得检察机关不诚信\u003c/strong\u003e，也就是说检察机关单方\u0026ldquo;违约\u0026rdquo;了，或者说检察机关出具的文书不作数。这种情况，如果在羁押场所多次传开，对认罪认罚制度的顺利推进肯定是负面的。虽然公诉人会说其也有难处，是审判机关觉得量刑建议不合适，如果不调整的话，审判机关会直接下判，那考核就会受影响，于是只能调整。笔者认为，公诉人可能确实因采纳率的原因面临着压力，但为了采纳率的高，去损害司法的公信力，孰重孰轻不言自明。\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/section\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003csection\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/section\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003csection\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-size:16px;\"\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e第二，从确定刑量刑建议来看。\u003c/strong\u003e90%以上的案件检察机关提出确定刑量刑建议，这个比例还是相当高的，确定刑量刑建议的提出如果与嫌疑人、被告人的预期相符，嫌疑人、被告人基本不会上诉，这显然节约了大量的司法资源，提高了司法效率。但有些案件，特别是嫌疑人、被告人未被羁押的案件，\u003cstrong\u003e公诉人有时出于某种原因，量刑建议对刑罚的执行方式，也就是是否适用缓刑往往不提，有时会说法院适用缓刑我们也不反对，这就把压力输送到法院。对于未被羁押的嫌疑人、被告人来说往往会产生误解\u003c/strong\u003e，这些嫌疑人、被告人往往心里预期是缓刑，如果一旦一审判决实刑，当场收监，往往会提出上诉。因为他们觉得司法机关会适用缓刑，但最终没有适用，公诉人又没有明确释明，这从某种程度上也会降低司法机关的公信力。虽然签署了具结书，但并未实现认罪认罚案件制度设立的初衷，也即未实现制度设立的目的。\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/section\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003csection\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/section\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003csection\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-size:16px;\"\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e第三，从审判机关来看。\u003c/strong\u003e审判机关对最终判决显然具有决定权，其可以不采纳检察机关提出的量刑建议，也可以建议检察机关对量刑建议予以调整，这些都没问题。但对于认罪认罚案件来说，检察机关与被告人对量刑是协商过的，如果量刑建议未明显失当，最好就别建议调整了，有法官可能会认为，审判权在法院，我有权力，这话也没错。但从认罪认罚制度设立的目的来看，是为了节约司法资源，为适用普通程序审理的疑难复杂案件争取时间的。如果检察机关建议8个月，最终判决9个月，意义何在，就为了体现一下审判权在法院？\u003cstrong\u003e如果公诉人迫于采纳率的考核调整了量刑建议，但被告人是何处境呢？被告人只能眼睁睁的看着具结书被撕毁，因为这个量刑建议是法院建议调整的，被告人肯定会想，如果不认罚，会不会再加重\u003c/strong\u003e，在这种压力下，被告人往往还会选择认罪认罚，但这种认罪认罚的自愿性可想而知。往往一审判决后，被告人还是会选择上诉。这也是对司法公信力的破坏。\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/section\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003csection\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/section\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003csection\u003e\r\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-size:16px;\"\u003e综上所述，笔者认为，认罪认罚制度节约的司法资源是用基层检察人员更多的工作量换的，基层检察人员为了嫌疑人、被告人认罪认罚会比制度设立前耗费更多的精力，教育转化，量刑计算等等。\u003cstrong\u003e因此，从大局出发，审判机关应当对检察机关提出的量刑建议予以尊重，未出现刑事诉讼法明确规定的情形，一般应当采纳，检察机关也应当坚持自己提出的量刑建议，即使审判机关最终未采纳，也应有所坚守，如果认为量刑适当，可以提出抗诉\u003c/strong\u003e，从而显示出检察机关对具结书的态度，只有这样嫌疑人、被告人对认罪认罚制度的宣传才是正向的，才会维护好司法公信力。\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp style=\"text-align: center;\"\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-size:16px;\"\u003e\u003cimg alt=\"\" src=\"/ckeditor_assets/pictures/401/content_%E5%BC%A0%E9%AA%8F-%E5%8D%A1%E7%89%87.png\" style=\"width: 800px; height: 340px;\" /\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\u003c/section\u003e\r\n","content_en":"\u003cp\u003eAuthor | Lawyer Zhang Jun from Changzhou\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cbr /\u003e\r\nIt has been nearly 6 years since the system of admitting guilt and accepting punishment has been piloted. As one of the supporting systems for the reform of the litigation system centered on trial, it is playing a role that cannot be underestimated in judicial practice. According to the recently released 2021 national procuratorial organs\u0026rsquo; main case-handling data, \u0026ldquo;Among the reviewed and prosecuted cases that have been handled, more than 85% of the cases concluded under the leniency system for admitting guilt, accepting punishment, and the same period; More than 90% of the sentencing recommendations put forward by the procuratorate; for the sentencing recommendations put forward by the procuratorial organs, the number of people who accepted the sentencing recommendations accounted for more than 97% of the sentencing recommendations put forward in the same period.\u0026quot; These data are enough to reflect the current situation of the implementation of the system of admitting guilt and accepting punishment in the procuratorial organs.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp\u003eHowever, many problems have also been exposed during the implementation of the system of admitting guilt and accepting punishment. If the judicial organ does not reflect on it in time, the author firmly believes that it will certainly damage the credibility of the judiciary in the long run.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp\u003eWhy come to the above conclusion?\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp\u003eFirst, from the point of view of the concluding book. Although the affidavit is not a contract, it is the result of the negotiation between the procuratorate and the suspect and the defendant on sentencing, and is an official document issued by the procuratorate. It is clearly stipulated that after admitting guilt and accepting punishment, the procuratorial organ\u0026#39;s sentencing recommendation should generally be adopted, that is to say, adoption is the principle, and non-admission is an exception. This is a clear stipulation of the law, and the judicial organs should strictly abide by it. After the suspect and the defendant sign the affidavit, if there are no new facts of the accusation or sentencing circumstances, the procuratorial organ will arbitrarily adjust the sentencing recommendation in the affidavit for whatever reason, especially to increase the punishment, which will make the suspect and the defendant feel The procuratorial organ is dishonest, that is to say, the procuratorial organ has unilaterally \u0026quot;broken the contract\u0026quot;, or the documents issued by the procuratorial organ are not counted. If this kind of situation spreads many times in the detention center, it will definitely be negative for the smooth progress of the system of confession and punishment. Although the public prosecutor will say that it is also difficult, the judicial organ feels that the sentencing recommendation is inappropriate. If it is not adjusted, the judicial organ will directly issue the sentence, and the assessment will be affected, so it can only be adjusted. The author believes that the public prosecutor may indeed be under pressure due to the adoption rate, but in order to have a high adoption rate and damage the credibility of the judiciary, it is self-evident which is more important.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp\u003eSecond, from the point of view of the determination of sentencing recommendations. In more than 90% of the cases, the procuratorial organs put forward suggestions for determining sentences, which is still quite high. If the suggestions for determining sentences are in line with the expectations of the suspects and defendants, the suspects and defendants will basically not appeal, which is obviously economical. A large number of judicial resources have improved judicial efficiency. However, in some cases, especially cases in which the suspect or defendant is not in custody, the prosecutor sometimes for some reason, the sentencing recommendation on the execution method of the sentence, that is, whether the suspended sentence is applicable, is often not mentioned. Sometimes it is said that the court applies the suspended sentence. We also No objection, which sends the pressure to the courts. There are often misunderstandings for suspects and defendants who are not in custody. These suspects and defendants often expect a suspended sentence. If the first-instance sentence is sentenced and sent to prison on the spot, they will often file an appeal. Because they thought that the judiciary would apply probation, but in the end it did not apply, and the prosecutor did not clearly explain it, which would also reduce the credibility of the judiciary to some extent. Although the acknowledgment was signed, it did not realize the original intention of the establishment of the plea case system, that is, the purpose of the establishment of the system.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp\u003eThird, from the perspective of judicial organs. The judicial organ obviously has the right to decide the final judgment. It may not accept the sentencing recommendation put forward by the procuratorial organ, or it may suggest that the procuratorial organ adjust the sentencing recommendation, which is all right. However, for plead guilty and punishable cases, the procuratorate and the defendant have negotiated the sentencing. If the sentencing recommendation is not obviously inappropriate, it is best not to suggest adjustments. Some judges may think that the judicial power is in the court, and I have the power. This is also true. However, from the point of view of the purpose of establishing the system of admitting guilt and accepting punishment, it is to save judicial resources and buy time for difficult and complex cases to be tried by ordinary procedures. If the procuratorial organ recommends 8 months and the final sentence is 9 months, what is the significance, just to show that the judicial power is in the court? If the public prosecutor adjusts the sentencing recommendation due to the assessment of the adoption rate, but what is the situation of the defendant? The defendant could only watch the affidavit being torn up, because this sentencing recommendation was adjusted by the court, and the defendant would definitely wonder if it would be aggravated if he did not admit the penalty. Under this kind of pressure, the defendant would often Choose to admit guilt and accept punishment, but the voluntary nature of this kind of confession and punishment can be imagined. Often, after the first-instance judgment, the defendant still chooses to appeal. It also undermines the credibility of the judiciary.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp\u003eTo sum up, the author believes that the judicial resources saved by the confession and punishment system are replaced by more workload of the grassroots prosecutors. Educational transformation, sentencing calculation, etc. Therefore, from the perspective of the overall situation, the judicial organs should respect the sentencing recommendations put forward by the procuratorial organs. If there is no circumstance clearly stipulated in the Criminal Procedure Law, they should generally be adopted. If you think the sentencing is appropriate, you can file a protest, thus showing the attitude of the procuratorial organ towards the affidavit. Only in this way can the publicity of the suspects and defendants on the confession and punishment system be positive, and the justice system will be maintained well. credibility.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp style=\"text-align: center;\"\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-size:16px;\"\u003e\u003cimg alt=\"\" src=\"/ckeditor_assets/pictures/401/content_%E5%BC%A0%E9%AA%8F-%E5%8D%A1%E7%89%87.png\" style=\"width: 800px; height: 340px;\" /\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n","_type":"继来法视界","position":0,"created_at":"2022-03-27T20:10:57.016+08:00","updated_at":"2022-06-14T09:34:00.000+08:00","pv":17755,"abstract_zh":"继来律师在您身边。","abstract_en":"JILAI lawyer is by your side.","link":""}