认罪认罚从宽制度下被害人程序权利保护研究

【作者】 张婷；

【导师】 张镭；

【作者基本信息】 南京师范大学 ， 法律硕士（法学）（专业学位）， 2021， 硕士

【摘要】 认罪认罚从宽制度不仅是完善刑事诉讼程序、提升刑事诉讼效率、落实宽严相济刑事政策的重要举措,也是体现现代司法宽容的方式之一,更是提升国家治理能力现代化的重要途径之一。正处于探索、完善、发展阶段的认罪认罚从宽制度在取得良好的法律效果和社会效果的同时也暴露出部分问题,如重视被追诉人的权利保障,忽略被害人的权利保护,尤其是程序权利,对当事人诉讼权利的保护呈现出不对等性。首先从现有的法律规范来看,关于被害人程序权利保护的条文不仅少而且规定较为模糊,可操作性不足;其次从现有的研究来看,对于认罪认罚从宽制度的研究多集中在制度的价值属性、被追诉人认罪认罚自愿性、合法性或者其他程序权利保护方面,关于被害人程序权利保护的研究较少。根据现有规范对被害人在认罪认罚从宽制度中程序权利保护的规定,结合已有的研究来看,被害人程序权利保护不足主要基于如下原因:一是刑事立法受被追诉人权利保护偏好的传统思想影响;二是被害人在认罪认罚从宽制度中的法律地位不明;三是被害人权利保护的理论准备不足;四是认罪认罚从宽制度承载的效率价值与周到保护被害人程序权利之间存在冲突。该制度试点之初侧重于落地,被害人的权利是否得以完整保障,既不影响程序运行,也不必然影响案件处理结果,因此被害人的程序权利保护基本被忽视。根据刑事诉讼法对于刑事诉讼中各个主体法律地位的规定来看,被害人与被追诉人同为刑事诉讼的当事人,因此,对二者的权利保护应当呈现出对等性。被害人作为犯罪行为直接侵犯的对象,按照程序正义的要求,理应有实质性地参与案件处理过程的权利。强化被害人在认罪认罚从宽制度中的程序权利保护,不仅可以提升该制度建设运行的规范化,而且还契合刑事诉讼制度改革的趋向,有助于提升刑事诉讼效率,更有助于丰富恢复性司法理念的实践内涵。鉴于此,为了保障认罪认罚从宽制度的持续规范化运行,需要重新审视被害人在该制度中的程序权利保护问题,具体而言,笔者认为可以从三方面对其进行完善。首先,应当明确被害人在认罪认罚从宽制度中应有的程序主体地位,即在认罪这一事实环节,被害人处于主要地位,帮助公安司法机关判断被追诉人认罪的真实性,而在涉及法律适用的认罚从宽环节处于辅助地位;其次,可以对被害人的程序权利进行细化拓展,保障认罪认罚从宽制度中的被害人至少享有完整的知情权、意见表达与被听取权、获得法律帮助权和提出异议权等,通过赋予、完善被害人具体的程序权利体现其程序主体地位;最后,可以为被害人程序权利的实现设计其他保障措施,如完善司法救助金的发放制度、探索推广被害人慈善公益救助途径,建立健全权力监督体系。强化被害人在认罪认罚从宽制度中的程序权利保护,是对被害人进行司法救助的重要方式之一,也是探索建设具有长久生命力的认罪认罚从宽制度的重心之一。更多还原

【Abstract】 The leniency system is not only an important measure to improve the criminal procedure,improve the efficiency of criminal proceedings,and implement the criminal policy of combining leniency and strictness,but also one of the ways to reflect modern judicial tolerance,and it is also one of the important ways to improve the modernization of national governance capabilities.The leniency system that is in the stage of exploration,improvement and development has achieved good legal and social effects,but also exposed some problems,such as attaching importance to the protection of the rights of the prosecuted and ignoring the protection of the rights of the victims,especially procedural rights.The protection of litigant rights of litigants is not equal.First of all,judging from the existing legal norms,there are not only few provisions on the protection of victims’ procedural rights,but also vague regulations and insufficient operability;Secondly,judging from the existing research,the research on the leniency system of confessing guilt and punishing mostly focuses on the value attribute of the system,the voluntariness of the prosecutor’s confession of guilt and punishing,the legitimacy or the protection of other procedural rights,there are few studies on the protection of victims’ procedural rights.According to the existing norms on the protection of victims’ procedural rights in the leniency system,combined with existing research,insufficient protection of victims’ procedural rights is mainly based on the following reasons: first,the criminal legislation is influenced by the traditional thinking of the prosecutor’s rights protection preference;second,the legal status of the victim in the leniency system of confessing guilt and punishing is unclear;third,there is insufficient theoretical preparation for the protection of victims’ rights;fourth,there is a conflict between the efficiency value carried by the leniency system and the thoughtful protection of the victim’s procedural rights.At the beginning of the trial,the system focused on whether the rights of the victims were fully protected,and neither affected the operation of the procedure nor necessarily affected the outcome of the case.Therefore,the protection of the rights of the victim’s procedural rights was basically ignored.According to the provisions of the Criminal Procedure Law regarding the legal status of each subject in the criminal procedure,the victim and the prosecuted are both parties in the criminal procedure.Therefore,the protection of the rights of the two should be equal.According to the provisions of the Criminal Procedure Law for the legal status of each subject,the victim and the prosecuted are both parties in the criminal procedure.Therefore,the two should be equal in the protection of their rights.Victims,as the objects of direct violations of criminal acts,should have the right to participate in the process of case processing in accordance with the requirements of procedural justice.Strengthening the protection of victims’ procedural rights in the leniency system can not only improve the standardization of the system’s construction and operation,but also conform to the trend of reform of the criminal procedure system,help improve the efficiency of criminal procedures,and enrich restorative justice.The practical connotation of the idea.In view of this,in order to ensure the continuous and standardized operation of the system of plea guilty and punishing leniency,it is necessary to re-examine the protection of the victim’s procedural rights in the plea punishing leniency system.Specifically,the author believes that it can be improved from three aspects.First,it is necessary to clarify the victim’s procedural subject status in the system of confession of guilt and punishing leniency,that is,in the factual link of confession,the victim is in the main position to help the public security and judiciary judge the authenticity of the prosecutor’s confession,and when it comes to the application of law The leniency link is in a supplementary position;Second,the procedural rights of the victim can be refined and expanded to ensure that the victim in the system of plea guilty and punished leniency at least has the complete right to know,the right to express opinions and to be heard,the right to obtain legal help and the right to raise objections,etc.,by giving the victim specific The procedural rights reflect its status as the subject of procedures;Finally,other safeguards can be designed for the realization of the victim’s procedural rights,such as perfecting the judicial aid payment system,exploring and promoting the victims’ charitable public welfare assistance channels,and establishing a sound power supervision system.Strengthening the protection of procedural rights of victims in the system of confession of guilt and confession is not only an important way to provide judicial assistance to victims,but also one of the focuses of exploring the construction of a system of confession and confession with long-term vitality.更多还原