認罪認罰從寬制度中的量刑建議

在傳統的''刑事訴訟第三範式''之下，量刑很大程度上屬於法官的職權範圍，在一些國家，檢察機關提出量刑建議是司法實踐的產物；關於量刑建議的理論爭議，其根本點在於是否應當賦予檢察機關量刑建議權。在''刑事訴訟第四範式''之下，量刑建議主要存在於協商性司法當中，並且量刑建議的實質從檢察機關的求刑權轉化為控辯雙方之間的合意，但是保留了法官對量刑協議進行司法審查的權力。量刑建議制度的正當性基礎應當從量刑公正、均衡、合理、效率等幾個維度加以審視。圍繞認罪認罰從寬制度中的量刑建議，我國理論界和實務界在量刑建議的性質、形成機制、提出方式、調整機制、效力等方面存在爭議，這與刑罰制度的多元化價值目標有關，也涉及檢察權與審判權之間的制衡機制。認罪認罰案件中量刑建議制度的具體建構，應當避免僵化的量刑規範、不充分的量刑資訊來源、低標準的證據規則以及形式化的量刑建議審查機制所帶來的結構性風險，應當保持量刑建議機制必要的開放性和量刑結果的可預測性，並且嚴守量刑公正的底線，儘量減少不必要的量刑偏差。

Under the traditional ''third paradigm of criminal procedure'', the power of sentencing is largely owned by professional judges. In some countries, the sentencing recommendation put forward by prosecutorial organs is the product of judicial practice. The fundamental theoretical dispute about the sentencing recommendation is whether prosecutorial organs should be endowed with this power. Under the ''fourth paradigm of criminal procedure'', sentencing recommendations mainly exist in the negotiating justice, and the nature of sentencing recommendation has been transformed from the sentencing claim to the court into the consensus on sentencing reached by both parties, although the judge retains the power to review such consensus. The legitimate foundation of sentencing recommendation should be reviewed from the perspectives of justice, proportionality, reasonableness and efficiency. For the System of Pleading Guilty and Accepting Punishments with Leniency(SPGAPL), the academic and the practice circle in China have disputes on the nature, formation mechanism, proposal approach, adjustment mechanism and effects of the sentencing recommendation. The disputes can be attributed to diverse values pursued by the penal system, and is also related to the balance mechanism between the prosecutorial power and the judicial power. To construct the sentencing recommendation system under the SPGAPL, it is important to avoid the structural risks brought by the inflexible sentencing standards, inadequate sentencing information sources, low-standard evidence rules and the ineffective sentencing recommendation review mechanism, to keep the necessary openness of the sentencing recommendation mechanism and the predictability of sentencing results, and to strictly adhere to the bottom line of sentencing justice and minimize unnecessary sentencing deviations.