摘要
德国立法者试图将认罪协商与查明案件事实真相协调,是一种“自欺欺人”的做法。该制度本身存在的固有矛盾和弱点,尤其是法院可以不受认罪协商效力拘束的情况下,却期望被告人先提供供述,违反了公正审判原则。被告人不参与达成协商前重要的初步会谈,这损害了被告人的诉讼主体地位。最新实证研究表明,认罪协商在司法实践中运用情况并不普遍。在协商过程中,司法实务并没有严格遵守立法的相关规定,尤其是联邦宪法法院所要求的“透明度规则”。
The German legislator tries to adopt a“self-deception”approach that attempts to reconcile plea bargaining with the identification of the facts of the case.There are inherent contradictions and weaknesses in the system,especially when the court can not be bound by the effectiveness of plea bargaining,but expects the defendant to provide a confession first,which violates the principle of fair trial.The defendant does not participate in the important preliminary talks before bargaining,which undermines the defendant’s status as the subject of the proceedings.The latest empirical study shows that the application of plea bargaining in judicial practice is not common.In the process of bargaining,judicial practice does not strictly comply with the relevant provisions of the legislation,especially the“transparency rules”required by the Federal Constitutional Court.
作者
黄河(译)
Bernd Schünemann;Huang He
出处
《法治社会》
2023年第1期119-126,共8页
Law-Based Society
基金
德国汉斯·赛德尔基金会(HSS)的鼎力资助。
关键词
认罪协商法案
透明度规则
实证研究
德国刑事诉讼
Plea Bargaining Bill
Transparency Rules
Empirical Study
German Criminal Procedure
