中国认罪认罚从宽制度中被告人权利保障研究

Abstract

The system of leniency for admitting guilt and accepting punishment, as a core component of restorative justice, has been intrinsically linked to the objectives of enhancing human rights protection and optimizing judicial resource allocation since its inception. However, in the process of differentiating and diverting cases, the protection of defendants’ rights has been compromised due to the strengthened power of the prosecution, which disrupts the balance of adversarial equality between the prosecution and the defense. This necessitates institutional adjustments and checks and balances. As a litigating party, the defendant’s substantive and procedural rights should inherently exist within the established litigation mechanism and should not be undermined by the improper conduct of other parties. The application of the system of leniency for admitting guilt and accepting punishment directly impacts the conviction and sentencing of the defendant. The review of the voluntariness of the defendant’s admission is the legitimate foundation of the system and the core of the “prosecution-defense agreement” nature of the statement of admission and repentance. Although the provisions of the Criminal Procedure Law and the Guiding Opinions on the Application of the System of Leniency for Admitting Guilt and Accepting Punishment are rooted in the value of protecting defendants’ rights, the broad discretionary power of the procuratorial organs and their excessive intervention in judicialproceedings have resulted in the adoption of convictions and sentencing largely depending on the discretion of the procuratorial organs. Furthermore, the current lack of mechanisms to restrain defendants from withdrawing their admissions has led procuratorial organs to frequently resort to appeals in response to defendants’ post-admission appeals. This is highly detrimental to the development of the system of leniency for admitting guilt and accepting punishment and to the construction of a modern criminal procedure system characterized by mutual coordination and mutual checks among investigation, prosecution, and adjudication. In the future, the standards for defendants’ admission of guilt and acceptance of punishment should be further clarified, the adoption of sentencing recommendations by procuratorial organs should be standardized, and substantive reviews of defendants’ admissions should be rigorously conducted. Efforts should be synchronized between the prosecution and the defense to achieve further refinement of the system.