作者：孙长永
作者介绍：西南政法大学诉讼法与司法改革研究中心教授，博士生导师
出版日期：2019年6月9日
内容提要 对于认罪认罚从宽制度的基本内涵，法学界和法律实务界均存在不同的认识。基于该制度的规范目的，兼顾实体公正、诉讼经济和权利保障等多种需求，对“认罪”应当从实体法、程序法和证据法意义上进行解释，只有同时符合实体法、程序法和证据法要求的“认罪”，才属于认罪认罚从宽制度语境中的“认罪”;“认罚”应当同时包含肯定性行为和禁止性行为两方面的内容，它除了要求被追诉人“同意量刑建议”以外，还要求其同意案件适用简化的诉讼程序，一般还要求被告人接受法院最终判处的刑罚，但并不禁止被告人对有罪判决的量刑部分提出上诉;“从宽”处理应当是指对案件的实体处理上予以从宽，不具有任何“程序从宽”的含义;所谓“强制措施从宽”的说法与我国的立法精神、司法实践以及我国认可的相关国际准则均不相符，不宜延续。
关键词 认罪认罚 从宽处理 刑事诉讼法
Abstract: There are different opinions in the academic circle and law practitioners on the basic connotations of the leniency system based on admission of guilt and acceptance of punishment. On account of the normative purposes of the system and multi-faceted needs such as substantive fairness, procedural economy and protection of rights, 'admission of guilt' should be interpreted according to substantive and procedural criminal law as well as the evidence law. Only interpretations that meet requirements in these three areas of law are qualified to be 'admission of guilt' under the system. 'Acceptance of punishment' must comprise of positive acts and negative acts, the former of which requires the accused not only to consent to the sentencing proposal but also to the simplified trial procedure. It usually requires that the accused accept the punishment delivered by the court, but does not necessarily mean the deprivation of the right of appeal. Leniency' should be understood only in respect of substantive disposal of the case, with no room for any 'procedural leniency' The so-called leniency in compulsory measures' is incompatible with relevant domestic law, judicial practice and international rules recognized by the Chinese government, and should not be used any longer.