认罪认罚案件量刑建议机制实证研究——以A市两级法院适用认罪认罚从宽制度审结的案件为样本

An Empirical Research on the Sentencing Recommendation Mechanism in the Case with the Accused Pleading Guilty and Accepting Punishment:Based on Cases Tried by the Two-instant Courts in City A

成果信息
DC信息
传播影响力
本库下载频次:
本库浏览频次:
CNKI下载频次:0

归属学者：

孙长永

归属院系：

法学院

作者：

孙长永1 ;田文军

摘要：

在认罪认罚案件中,辩护主体的量刑协商能力较弱,对量刑建议的实质影响力有限;确定刑量刑建议更容易获得犯罪嫌疑人的同意和法官的支持,已经成为量刑建议实践的主流。一线法官不会轻易调整检察机关建议判处的刑罚,无论是幅度刑量刑建议还是确定刑量刑建议,法官普遍持认同态度,只有极少数案件的量刑建议未获法院采纳,因而检察机关主导认罪认罚被告人的量刑结果已经成为现实。认罪认罚案件中的量刑建议机制存在量刑建议协商性不足、确定刑量刑建议合理性不足、实质审查流于形式、辩护权保障不力的问题。只有从制度上完善量刑建议的约束力条款,在操作上努力增强量刑建议的适当性,坚持对量刑建议进行实质审查,并充分保障被追诉人从量刑建议的形成、提出到审查、采纳过程中的辩护权,才能有效解决量刑建议机制存在的问题,促进认罪认罚从宽制度更好地实现公正与效率相统一的价值目标。

出版日期：

2021-10-15

学科：

法学

提交日期：

2021-12-09

引用参考：

孙长永;田文军. 认罪认罚案件量刑建议机制实证研究——以A市两级法院适用认罪认罚从宽制度审结的案件为样本[J]. 西南政法大学学报,2021(05):3-16.

全文附件授权许可：

知识共享许可协议-署名

  • dc.title
  • 认罪认罚案件量刑建议机制实证研究——以A市两级法院适用认罪认罚从宽制度审结的案件为样本
  • dc.contributor.author
  • 孙长永;田文军
  • dc.contributor.author
  • SUN Chang-yong;TIAN Wen-jun;Southwest University of Political Science and Law
  • dc.contributor.affiliation
  • 西南政法大学
  • dc.publisher
  • 西南政法大学学报
  • dc.publisher
  • Journal of Southwest University of Political Science and Law
  • dc.identifier.year
  • 2021
  • dc.identifier.issue
  • 05
  • dc.identifier.volume
  • v.23;No.137
  • dc.identifier.page
  • 3-16
  • dc.date.issued
  • 2021-10-15
  • dc.subject
  • 认罪认罚从宽制度;量刑建议;实证研究
  • dc.subject
  • system of leniency based on the pleading guilty and accepting punishment;sentencing recommendation;empirical research
  • dc.description.abstract
  • 在认罪认罚案件中,辩护主体的量刑协商能力较弱,对量刑建议的实质影响力有限;确定刑量刑建议更容易获得犯罪嫌疑人的同意和法官的支持,已经成为量刑建议实践的主流。一线法官不会轻易调整检察机关建议判处的刑罚,无论是幅度刑量刑建议还是确定刑量刑建议,法官普遍持认同态度,只有极少数案件的量刑建议未获法院采纳,因而检察机关主导认罪认罚被告人的量刑结果已经成为现实。认罪认罚案件中的量刑建议机制存在量刑建议协商性不足、确定刑量刑建议合理性不足、实质审查流于形式、辩护权保障不力的问题。只有从制度上完善量刑建议的约束力条款,在操作上努力增强量刑建议的适当性,坚持对量刑建议进行实质审查,并充分保障被追诉人从量刑建议的形成、提出到审查、采纳过程中的辩护权,才能有效解决量刑建议机制存在的问题,促进认罪认罚从宽制度更好地实现公正与效率相统一的价值目标。
  • dc.description.abstract
  • In the cases with the accused pleading guilty and accepting punishment,the defense party's sentencing negotiation ability is weak which leads to limited substantial influence on sentencing recommendations. Specific sentence recommendation has become the mainstream in judicial practice,which is easier to obtain the consent of the suspect and the support of the judge. Generally,the judges do not adjust the sentence,whether it is a range of sentence or a specific sentence,recommended by the procuratorate. Only in a few cases the sentence recommendations have not been accepted by the court. Therefore,The sentencing result of the prosecution in pleading guilty has become a reality. Four problems arise from the implementation process of sentencing recommendation mechanism: the first one is the recommended sentence is insufficiently negotiated; the second one is specific sentence recommendation is not rationale; the third one is substantive judicial review of sentence recommendation is formalized; the fourth one is the right of defense is not protected sufficiently. For resolving these problems in order to achieve the unity of justice and efficiency,we must abolish Article 201( 1),enhance the appropriateness of sentencing recommendation,insist on substantive review of sentencing recommendation and fully protect the defendant's right of defense from the formation,submission,review,and adoption of sentencing recommendation.
  • dc.description.sponsorshipPCode
  • 201919AFX009;2021FXY2021025
  • dc.description.sponsorship
  • 2019年度国家社科基金重点项目“认罪认罚从宽制度实施问题研究”(19AFX009);西南政法大学法学院2021年度学生科研创新项目“认罪认罚案件量刑建议实证研究”(FXY2021025)
  • dc.description.sponsorshipsource
  • 国家社会科学基金
  • dc.identifier.CN
  • 50-1024/C
  • dc.identifier.issn
  • 1008-4355
  • dc.identifier.if
  • 0.928
  • dc.subject.discipline
  • D925.2
回到顶部