如何看待被告人有罪答辩——辩诉交易的一点启示

美国辩诉交易制度中的合理因素 ,可以为我国刑事司法实践中正确等待被告人有答辩提供借鉴。应当更新诉讼理念 ,将认罪答辩视为被告人作为诉讼主体对刑事程序运作方式的一种选择 ,建立激励被告人自愿作出有罪答辩的机制 ,对此类案件可简化诉讼程序 ,同时应建立对被告人有罪答辩自愿性明智性的审查机制。     

辩诉交易强迫认罪问题对认罪认罚从宽制度的警示

美国辩诉交易要求被告作有罪答辩必须是出于自由意志的行为,但是,由于检察官在刑事司法中拥有绝对权力,律师作用有限,被告在决定是否接受控方提供的交易条件时几乎没有自由选择的余地.这种机制性强迫压力的存在为无辜被告认罪的现实和心理学实验研究所证实,并已经引起美国联邦最高法院的关注.我国的认罪认罚从宽制度同样强调被追诉人认罪认罚的自愿性,但是由于"自愿性"标准不明确,且其也存在控审权力配置不当、律师作用更为有限等问题,认罪认罚从宽制度同样存在强迫认罪甚至使无辜被告认罪的风险.为有效防控此种风险,需明确"自愿性"标准,整体性、系统性推进刑事司法改革,并注重制度推行中的科学性.     

有罪答辩与量刑减让

被告人的有罪答辩对其获得的量刑减让有着重要的作用和影响。在英美等国 ,有罪答辩是量刑减让的正当依据 ,但有罪答辩与量刑减让之间并不存在必然的因果关系 ,法官对被告人施以的量刑减让以及减让的程度 ,还需考虑犯罪的性质、被告人的基本情况等其他因素。同时 ,量刑减让制度对于被告人有罪答辩的作出又存在反作用。被告人有罪答辩的作出来自于律师、检察官和法官传递的量刑减让的信息 ,在英美等国 ,法官对量刑减让信息的披露是受到严格限制的。我国传统意义上的坦白属于被控人的一项法定义务 ,具有实体意义 ,不同于有罪答辩 ,故坦白从宽政策不具有正当性。与此同时 ,我国简易程序中对有罪答辩的量刑减让则具有正当性 ,但减让的实施较英美等国有较大的限制。     

辩诉交易与刑事简易程序改革

辩诉交易源于美国，是美国一项重要的刑事诉讼制度，该程序简便、快捷的优点为世界一些国家诉讼改革所仿效，其中具有代表意义的有德国的“处罚令程序”和意大利的“基于当事人请求适用刑罚的程序”。而德国、意大利等国家对辩诉交易制度的改造移植，表明该制度具有超越法系的借鉴作用。刑事审判的目的在于确定被告人是否有罪及其刑事责任，被告人的有罪答辩使以控辩双方充分对抗为预设前提的普通程序失去其内在的价值。辩诉交易制度鼓励被告人认罪服法，立足点是使所有犯罪都受到处罚，体现的是较高层次的公正。从实践上看，辩诉交易是刑事案件大幅上升与司法资源匮乏矛盾的产物，体现了效率的价值要求，是公正和效率两种价值目标协调的结果。本文运用历史考查的方法和比较研究的方法，综合考察了外国主要辩诉交易制度的历史发展，在把握辩诉交易的法律特性的基础上，以公正和效率为价值取向，理论联系实际，对改革我国刑事诉讼简易程序、实行有罪答辩制度的正当性、必要性和可行性进行了深入研究。在程序设计上，回归公正和效率的价值要求，考虑到诉讼机制改革的演进性及我国现有条件，建议分步实行重刑认罪案件简易审和轻刑认罪案件书面审两种有罪答辩程序。     

完善"严禁刑讯逼供"法律制度——兼谈"不得被强迫自证有罪"

我国"严禁刑讯逼供"与"不得被强迫自证有罪"与国际人权公约的最低限度保证是一致的.由于我国"严禁刑讯逼供"法律制度不完善,刑讯逼供、强迫自证有罪屡禁不止,造成一批冤假错案.完善"严禁刑讯逼供"法律制度,要赋予犯罪嫌疑人及被告人"反对刑讯逼供"、"不被强迫自证有罪"的权利并优待证人,强化刑事律师的作用,加强对讯问的监控,规定法院、检察院对刑讯逼供证据的特别审查程序,规定刑讯逼供犯罪嫌疑人的举证责任,强化侦查措施,实行羁押与侦查分管等.     

认罪认罚从宽程序中的潜在风险及其防范

认罪认罚从宽程序以犯罪嫌疑人、被告人认罪为基础,以诉讼程序简化为特征,其正当性取决于认罪是否具有自愿性和真实性.然而现阶段我国认罪认罚从宽程序面临着较高的非自愿认罪风险和虚假认罪风险.导致非自愿认罪风险存在的原因包括非法侦查讯问行为的存在、律师帮助权的缺位和证据先悉权的缺陷等;导致虚假认罪风险存在的原因则包括被追诉人的主观原因、审讯策略和技术的运用、无罪判决率畸低、无效的律师帮助等.欲有效防范这些风险的发生,需要在审前阶段确立反对强迫自我归罪特权、建立律师有效帮助机制、保障认罪前的证据先悉权,也需要在审判阶段建立专门的认罪审查程序、确立判决前的反悔机制以及完善上诉制度.     

从建立被告人有罪答辩制度到引入辩诉交易--论美国辩诉交易制度的借鉴意义

美国辩诉交易制度对于我国刑事司法改革具有借鉴意义,即在我国有必要建立被告人有罪答辩制度.具体而言,应对现行简易程序进行改造完善,主要是建立被告人认罪从轻、减轻刑罚制度,并扩大案件适用范围.还有必要探索引入辩诉交易制度,建立中国式辩诉交易,应着重制度建设.应对适用案件范围、适用条件作出明确规定,还应建立严密的适用程序,保障制度以及司法审查机制.     

认罪认罚从宽制度中检察官和值班律师角色定位问题研究

<正>在认罪认罚案件中,值班律师为没有辩护人的犯罪嫌疑人、被告人提供免费的法律服务,有利于维护犯罪嫌疑人、被告人的合法权益,有利于认罪认罚从宽制度顺利实施。然而,在实践中,因存在检察官与值班律师角色定位认识模糊等问题,法律帮助“走过场”、值班律师异化为见证人等现象时有发生,导致认罪认罚从宽制度的价值难以充分实现。为保障值班律师有效参与认罪认罚案件,     

认罪认罚案件中的有效辩护

律师的有效辩护是保障认罪认罚案件程序公正的理论前提,唯有有效辩护才能保障被告人认罪的自愿性、程序选择的自主性及量刑建议的公正性.在认罪认罚从宽制度中,应强化值班律师制度的落实与完善,明确其辩护人的定位、肯定值班律师的阅卷权及量刑协商等权利,保障其尽职尽责履行辩护职责,使其成为认罪认罚程序积极有效的参与者而非消极的“见证人”.对于辩护律师存在明显的工作缺欠并导致被告人失去程序选择机会的,构成无效辩护,应当强化法庭对认罪认罚活动的司法审查,明确被告人辩护权的救济机制,完善认罪案件中被告人“反悔”时的救济程序.     

论无罪辩护与量刑辩护的关系

在相对独立的量刑程序中，当被告人不认罪时，律师虽普遍采纳“如果有罪”的辩护逻辑，但却无法克服无罪辩护和量刑辩护之间的矛盾。律师的庭前准备和庭审的资源分配都显示出无罪辩护在一定程度上限制了量刑辩护发展，同时，后续的量刑辩护意见既无法贯彻无罪推定原则对被告人的保护，也会冲击先前无罪辩护的效果。两者的紧张关系需要按照一定的思...     

Guilt Shall Not Escape or Innocence Suffer? The Limits of Plea Bargaining When Defendant Guilt is Uncertain

This article examines optimal prosecutor behavior with respectto plea bargaining when defendant guilt is uncertain. I showthat when jury beliefs and behavior are determined endogenouslyin equilibrium along with defendant and prosecutor behavior,plea bargaining can play only a limited role in managing society'sconflicting desires to maximize punishment of the guilty andminimize punishment of the falsely accused. In particular, whileit can be optimal for prosecutors to use plea bargaining toinduce a large fraction of guilty defendants to voluntarilysort themselves from the innocent, such sorting must come atthe cost of imposing relatively short sentences on such guiltydefendants who accept plea bargains.     

Is a Plea Really a Bargain? An Empirical Study of Six Cities in China

There is a belief in the criminal justice system that it is better to take a plea offer to avoid uncertain consequences than risk going to trial. Prior studies using the data in Anglo-American courts have suggested that many legal and extralegal factors influence the decision of a guilty plea versus trial. China developed its own plea-bargaining system in 2016. Using 6826 DUI cases adjudicated in six cities, this study examines what factors affect the decision of a guilty plea and whether the guilty plea brings true benefits in Chinese courts. The results show that more serious crimes and more dangerous defendants were less likely to be disposed of through guilty pleas (as opposed to going to trial). One possible explanation is that prosecutors may make more punitive offers in these cases, which in turn discourages defendants from accepting them. In addition, using a propensity score weighting technique to control for potential confounding variables, this study finds that defendants who pleaded guilty were more likely to receive favorable case outcomes regarding pretrial detention and probation decision, which supports the argument that a guilty plea could help a defendant to avoid the “trial penalty” in Chinese criminal justice system.

     

论绝对确定性和死刑

近年来死刑误判案件的披露引起了人们对如何减少此类错误的重新关注。因此，建议提高死刑案件中陪审团成员对被告人罪行确定性的研究者们一致呼吁适用高于排除合理怀疑的证明标准。本文在第二部分列举了一些当前论证死刑案件中可以适用排除合理怀疑证明标准的理论．并说明这些理论是否能证明死刑案件的定罪阶段和量刑阶均应适用更高证明标准。但因为死刑案件仍相对较少．所以误判死刑案件对正当性造成的整体损害小于每年误判数以千计的非死刑案件造成的损害：2002年仅有159人被判处死刑，但2000年有近925000名成年人在州法院被判处重罪，其中45000人在审判中被定罪（其余为自己认罪）。如果在死刑案件中要求真正的绝对确定性．那么可能会因为没有陪审团成员能真正声称自己有“绝对的确定性”而导致无人会被判处死刑。     

When Due Process Is of No Consequence: Moral Mandates and Presumed Defendant Guilt or Innocence

Most current theories of justice are focused on how social identity, instrumental concerns, or both shape how people decide whether something is fair or unfair. A neglected consideration is that people may also be concerned with justice because they strive to be authentic moral beings by acting on the basis of values closely tied to their personal identity. We posited that self-expressive moral positions or stands (moral mandates) are important determinants of how people reason about fairness. Supporting this notion, we found that (a) people see some trial outcomes in morally mandated terms, e.g., that the guilty must be convicted and punished, and the innocent must not; (b) convicting a defendant believed to be innocent or acquitting a defendant believed to be guilty were seen as unfair, regardless of whether the verdict was achieved by a fair or unfair investigation and trial (Study 1); and (c) a guilty defendant's death was seen as equally fair, and an innocent defendant's death was equally unfair, if it was achieved by a trial that led to the death penalty or by vigilantism (Study 2). Procedural propriety only mattered when defendant guilt was ambiguous.     

被告人认罪认罚反悔问题研究

自认罪认罚从宽制度实施以来,被告人认罪认罚反悔问题引发了学界热议。从效果上看,被告人反悔权是一把"双刃剑",其有助于保障被告人认罪认罚的自愿性,确保认罪认罚案件的质量,但被告人滥用反悔权造成的负面影响亦不容忽视。为避免认罪协商程序运行受阻,有必要从规范反悔权行使、完善量刑激励制度、强化法律文书的释法说理、发挥值班律师作用、加强自愿性审查与监督、恰当使用认罪供述证据等方面构建被告人反悔应对机制,以减少被告人反悔机率。     

The death-qualified jury and the defense of insanity

We predicted that people who are excluded from serving on juries in capital cases due to their opposition to the death penalty (excludable subjects) tend to place a greater value on the preservation of due process guarantees than on efficient crime control, and therefore are more likely to accept an insanity defense in criminal cases than are people who are permitted to serve on capital juries (death-qualified subjects). Subjects who had previously been classified as death-qualified or excludable read four summaries of cases in which the defendant entered a plea of insanity, and made judgments of guilt or innocence. In the two cases involving nonorganic disorders (schizophrenia), death-qualified subjects were significantly more likely than excludable subjects to vote guilty; in the two cases involving organic disorders (mental retardation and psychomotor epilepsy), there were no differences between the two groups. In addition, excludable subjects gave significantly higher estimates than death-qualified subjects of the proportion of defendants pleading insanity who really are insane.     

Negotiated Case-ending Settlements: Ways of Speeding up the (Court) Process

The subject of this article is a special type of fast-tracked case-ending decisions called “negotiated case-ending settlements”. Those proceedings are based on a kind of agreement between the parties, end with a real conviction of the offender and their legal consequence is a true but mitigated punishment. They can be found in six of 11 countries studied, namely, in England & Wales, Croatia, France, Hungary, Poland and Spain. The English guilty plea procedures, the French appearance before a court after prior admission of guilt and the Polish prosecutor’s application for a conviction to be rendered without a trial as well as the voluntary submission to penalty are examined more closely here. The comparative study focuses on the stage, where the negotiation is made, the conditions for the use of these settlements and the PPS’s role therein.     

Plea decision-making: the influence of attorney expertise,trustworthiness, and recommendation

ABSTRACT

Attorney recommendations influence defendant plea decisions; and the degree of influence likely rests on the perceived trustworthiness and level of expertise of the attorney (factors of source credibility). We explored attorney source credibility factors and how these characteristics influence defendants’ plea decision-making. MTurk participants read a hypothetical plea scenario and were asked to imagine themselves as the defendant in a DWI/DUI case making a plea decision; in the scenario, we manipulated the defense attorney’s level of trustworthiness, expertise, and plea recommendation. There was a significant interaction between attorney recommendation and trustworthiness on defendants’ plea decisions; participants who were advised to accept the guilty plea were more likely to plead guilty when the attorney was high in trustworthiness compared to low in trustworthiness. Attorney trustworthiness did not affect plea decisions for defendants advised to reject the guilty plea. Importantly, attorney trustworthiness affected defendants’ decision to follow the attorney’s recommendation and ultimate plea decision (regardless of expertise), and attorney expertise affected defendants’ confidence in their decision (regardless of trustworthiness). Results suggest individual-level characteristics of defense attorneys affect the influence of the attorney and their recommendation, and ultimately defendants’ plea decision-making.