| 摘要: |
| 《刑事诉讼法》第201条涉及控辩量刑合意之于法院的效力，其包括实体和程序两个维度。“控辩合意→法院确认”“法院让渡量刑权”等对美国辩诉交易的认识可能存在误差： 在法律规范层面，量刑协议对法院并无约束力；即使在司法实践中，美国法院亦对最终量刑有实质影响。将我国《刑事诉讼法》第201条中的“一般应当采纳”解释为量刑建议对法院的刑罚裁判具有约束力，无法通过控审分离准则的正当性检验。从量刑权属之辩回归量刑规律本身，法院采纳量刑建议的实体性标准是“量刑建议适当”；“量刑建议没有明显不当，法院即应采纳”的论断有违法学方法论上的要求；但法院应对量刑建议给予适当包容，这是“一般应当采纳”所内含的一种对法院行使自由裁量权的价值引导。在程序维度上量刑建议对法院具有约束力，即法院拟不采纳量刑建议时不得径行做出裁判。第201条第2款设定的程序控制是以法院的告知义务为重心。法院负有告知检察机关调整量刑建议的义务，更为关键的是法院对被告人的告知义务。一审法院违反告知义务是否导致发回重审的后果，二审法院应基于辩护权保障做实质判断。 |
| 关键词: 认罪认罚从宽 辩诉交易 “一般应当采纳” 量刑建议适当 告知义务 |
| DOI： |
| 分类号: |
| 基金项目:最高人民检察院检察理论研究课题“完善认罪认罚案件诉讼程序研究”（项目编号： GJ2024D18）和吉林大学“中国式现代化与人类文明新形态”哲学社会科学创新团队青年项目“中国式刑事审判现代化基础理论研究”（项目编号： 2023QNTD01） |
|
| Rethinking on the Effectiveness of Sentencing Agreement |
|
Jia Zhiqiang
|
|
|
| Abstract: |
| Article 201 of the Criminal Procedure Law involves the effectiveness of the sentencing agreement between the prosecution and the defense on the court, which includes two dimensions: substantive and procedural. The understanding of American plea bargaining, such as “prosecution-defense agreement → court confirmation” and “court ceding sentencing power”, may be inaccurate: at the level of legal norms, sentencing agreements are not binding on the court; even in judicial practice, American courts have a substantial impact on the final sentencing. Interpreting “generally should be adopted” in Article 201 of Criminal Procedure Law as the sentencing recommendation is binding on the court's judgment cannot pass the legitimacy test of the principle of separation of prosecution and trial. Returning from the debate on the ownership of sentencing power to the sentencing law itself, the substantive standard for the court to adopt the sentencing recommendation is “appropriate sentencing recommendation”. The assertion that “the court should adopt the sentencing recommendation if it is not obviously inappropriate” violates the requirements of legal methodology. However, the court should give appropriate tolerance to the sentencing recommendation, which is a value guidance for the court to exercise its discretionary power contained in “generally should be adopted”. In terms of the procedural dimension, the sentencing recommendation is binding on the court, that is, the court shall not make a judgment directly when it intends not to adopt the sentencing recommendation. The procedural control set by Paragraph 2 of Article 201, focuses on the court's obligation to inform. The court has the obligation to inform the procuratorate of the adjustment of the sentencing recommendation and, more importantly, has the obligation to inform the defendant. As to whether the violation by the first instance court results in the case being sent back for retrial, the second instance court should make a substantive judgment based on the protection of the right to defense. |
| Key words: the Leniency System for Admitting Guilt and Accepting Punishment, Plea Bargaining, “Generally Should Be Adopted”, Appropriate Sentencing Recommendation, Obligation to Inform |
