作者：汪海燕
作者介绍：中国政法大学教授
出版日期：2023年12月9日
内容提要 以审判为中心的诉讼制度改革和完善刑事诉讼中认罪认罚从宽制度根植于相同的时代背景，服务于共同的司法目标，但二者有不同的功能定位。前者指向“推进严格司法”，是对程序法治和司法规律要求的回应，而后者是“优化司法职权配置”的重要内容，强调司法资源的优化配置和刑事诉讼体系的科学构建。相较而言，以审判为中心更具宏观性和基础性，完善刑事诉讼中认罪认罚从宽制度应以其为依托。从构造层面考察，检察主导责任在认罪认罚从宽场域体现明显，但不能游离于审判中心之外。从程序层面分析，认罪认罚案件的庭审具有程序简化、将认罪认罚的“三性”作为审查对象等特征，虽然与传统的庭审实质化表现不同，但仍有其实质性功能与价值。从证据层面来看，无论案件是否适用认罪认罚从宽程序，定罪证明标准都不能降低。《刑事诉讼法》再次修改时，有必要将“以审判为中心”作为一项基本原则写入。
关键词 以审判为中心 认罪认罚从宽 庭审实质化 检察主导 证明标准
Abstract: The reform of the trial-centered litigation system and the improvement of the system of pleading guilty and accepting punishment with leniency (PGAPL) are rooted in the same era background and serve a common judicial goal, but they have different functional orientations. The former points to the ‘promotion of strict justice’, which is a response to the requirements of the procedural rule of law and the law of justice, while the latter is an important element of the ‘optimization of the allocation of judicial functions and powers’, emphasizing the optimal allocation of judicial resources and the scientific construction of the criminal procedure system. In comparison, the trial-centered system is more macroscopic and fundamental, and should be used as a basis for improving the PGAPL in criminal proceedings. From the structural level, the prosecutor’s leading responsibility in the field of the PGAPL is obvious, but cannot be separated from the center of the trial. From the procedural level, the court hearings in cases related to the PGAPL are characterized by simplified procedures, and the ‘three natures’ of pleading guilty and accepting punishment as the object of review, which, although different from the traditional performance for the substantiation of the court hearings, still have their substantive functions and value. At the evidence level, the standard of proof of conviction cannot be lowered, regardless of whether or not a case is subject to the PGAPL. In the future, it will be necessary to include ‘trial-centeredness’ as a fundamental principle in the Criminal Procedure Law.