認罪認罰自願性的心理標準

被追訴人自願認罪認罰的動機可用“期望理論”“歸因理論”“自我決定理論”“自我效能理論”“成就目標理論”等心理學理論解釋。實踐中因標準規範的缺失、形式化審查的普遍運用以及審查本身的不受重視所造成的自願性標準虛化，導致認罪認罰從寬制度的適用率統計、運行效率與辦案效果評價都受到影響。引入解釋認罪認罰動機的心理學理論並置於預先評估環節，把原先的認罪認罰自願性、合法性審查整合為“狹義自願性”判斷，並將認罪認罰真實性作為兜底審查，以階層審查方法適當修正原先的自願性、合法性、真實性的平面審查，能夠實質評價自願性並及時分辨非自願情形。為均衡被追訴人認罪認罰自願性內外部保障，可運用心理學標準，將動機要素合理融入制度啟動條件、偵查階段認罪教育、審查起訴階段量刑協商過程中，作為庭審對象予以重點審查，並納入認罪認罰錯案評價與救濟體系。

The motives behind a defendant's voluntary admission of guilt and acceptance of punishment can be explained using psychological theories such as expectancy theory, attribution theory, self-determination theory, self-efficacy theory, and achievement goal theory. In practice, the absence of clear standards, the widespread use of formalistic review procedures, and the general lack of emphasis on voluntariness assessments have led to a weakening of voluntariness standards. This, in turn, undermines the statistical evaluation of the application rate, operational efficiency, and overall case-handling effectiveness of the leniency system for guilty pleas. Introducing psychological theories that explain the motivation for guilty pleas into the pre-assessment stage, and integrating the traditional review of voluntariness and legality into a narrower concept of voluntariness, while reserving the review of the truthfulness of the guilty plea as a final safeguard, would allow for a more substantive evaluation of voluntariness. By adopting a tiered review approach in place of the original flat assessment of voluntariness, legality, and truthfulness, authorities can more effectively assess whether a guilty plea is genuinely voluntary and promptly identify cases where it is not. To balance the internal and external safeguards for the voluntariness of guilty pleas, psychological standards should be reasonably incorporated into the conditions for initiating the leniency system, into educational efforts to encourage truthful admissions during the investigation stage, and into sentencing negotiations during the prosecution stage. These motivational factors should also be key subjects of courtroom review and be incorporated into the evaluation and remedy system for wrongful convictions or erroneous applications of the guilty plea and leniency mechanism.