吉首大学学报(社会科学版) ›› 2026, Vol. 47 ›› Issue (2): 77-89.DOI: 10.13438/j.cnki.jdxb.2026.02.009

• “认罪认罚”专题 • 上一篇    下一篇

认罪认罚案件适用相对不起诉制度的优化与完善——以轻罪治理为视角

吴宏耀,梁彦   

  1. (1.中国政法大学 诉讼法学研究院,北京 100088;2.福州大学 人事处,福建 福州 350108)

  • 出版日期:2026-03-01 发布日期:2026-02-06
  • 作者简介:吴宏耀,男,博士,中国政法大学诉讼法学研究院教授,博士生导师;梁彦,女,博士,福州大学教师。
  • 基金资助:
    国家社会科学基金项目(21BFX068)

On the Optimization and Institutional Enhancement of Discretionary Non-Prosecution in Guilty Plea and Acceptance of Punishment Cases:A Perspective on Minor Offense Governance

WU Hongyao,LIANG Yan   

  1. (1.Institute of Procedural Law,China University of Political Science and Law,Beijing 100088,China;2.Office of Human Resources,Fuzhou University,Fujian 350108,China)

  • Online:2026-03-01 Published:2026-02-06

摘要:

为顺应刑事犯罪结构的变化,在《刑事诉讼法》第四次修订之际,应当从制度上进一步优化并完善认罪认罚从宽制度。在轻微罪行以及相应的轻缓量刑持续增长的现实背景下,蕴含提升诉讼效率、避免标签效应、恢复社会关系等价值的相对不起诉制度在应对轻罪案件中的优势凸显,而相对不起诉制度与认罪认罚从宽制度相辅相成,故在应对认罪认罚轻罪案件时,相对不起诉的制度效能有待进一步激发。面对司法实践中普遍存在的规范性文件规定不明、权力行使与权利保障有所缺憾、对相对不起诉缺乏正确认识等现实问题,从范围限定、程序建构和权力制衡等方面能够系统规范认罪认罚轻罪案件适用相对不起诉的活动。就规范而言,以宽严相济刑事政策为指引,增加起诉必要性审查,及时将“没有追诉必要”的案件从刑事追诉程序中分流出去,并通过指导案例的形式统一适用。就程序而言,应从内部简化相对不起诉的适用审批程序,从外部完善行刑反向衔接程序和控辩协商程序。就制衡而言,可设置中立的司法裁判机构专司对检察机关审查起诉活动的司法审查,并明确相应程序。

关键词: 相对不起诉制度, 认罪认罚, 轻罪案件, 被追诉人, 律师

Abstract: To align with structural shifts in criminal offending,the leniency system for guilty pleas and acceptance of punishment should be further optimized and institutionally refined during the upcoming fourth amendment to the Criminal Procedure Law.Against the backdrop of a sustained rise in minor offenses and correspondingly lenient sentencing,discretionary non-prosecution—embodying values such as procedural efficiency,avoidance of stigmatizing labels,and restoration of social relations—demonstrates distinct advantages in addressing minor offense cases.Given the mutual reinforcement between discretionary non-prosecution and the guilty plea leniency system,the operational effectiveness of the former in handling minor guilty plea cases warrants further enhancement.In light of prevalent practical challenges—including ambiguous provisions in normative documents,imbalances between prosecutorial power and rights protection,and misconceptions about discretionary non-prosecution—the application of this mechanism to minor guilty plea cases can be systematically regulated through three dimensions:scope definition,procedural design,and power constraint.Normatively,guided by the criminal policy of tempering justice with mercy,a necessity-of-prosecution review should be institutionalized to promptly divert cases deemed "unnecessary for prosecution" out of the criminal process,with unified standards established through guiding cases.Procedurally,internal approval workflows for discretionary non-prosecution should be streamlined,while external mechanisms for referring cases back to administrative authorities and for prosecution-defense negotiation should be strengthened.In terms of oversight,a neutral judicial body should be designated to conduct independent judicial review of procuratorial decisions on non-prosecution,with clear procedural safeguards codified in law.

Key words: discretionary non-prosecution, guilty plea and acceptance of punishment, minor offense cases, the accused person, lawyer

版权所有 © 2021《吉首大学学报(社会科学版)》编辑部
技术支持:北京玛格泰克科技发展有限公司
公众号 电子书橱 超星期刊 手机浏览 在线QQ