公訴案件當事人和解制度的實踐檢視與路徑完善──基於二審裁判文書的實證研究

Observation and Inspection of Victim-offender Reconciliation Practice of Public Prosecution Cases in China: An Empirical Study on the Adjudication Documents of Second Instance Trial

公訴案件當事人和解程序自2012年引入立法以來取得了一定成效，但對1210份二審程序裁判文書的實證分析顯示，當事人和解程序在實踐中面臨罪名突破法定適用範圍、一審和解從寬效果不彰、二審和解反噬一審、控辯審三方分歧逆增等問題。究其原因，除了實體法依據付之闕如、實踐運作的路徑依賴、和解自願性程序保障不足外，判决還受制於審前强制措施。鑒於此，應從以下兩方面進一步完善：一方面，填補實體法依據為和解從寬提供權力支撑；另一方面，應當逐漸擴充適用罪名範圍、拓展審前非羈押化空間牽引法院之裁判、增補和解自願性程序保障、後延二審賠償評價至執行階段。

Although the victim-offender reconciliation procedure of public prosecution cases has achieved some success since it was introduced in the legislation in 2012, the empirical analysis of 1210 adjudication documents of the second instance procedure shows that it is faced with problems in practice, such as the breaking through the legal scope of application, the poor effect of leniency obtained by the defendant in the first instance, the second instance reconciliation eroding the first instance and the inverse increase of the contradictions and differences between prosecution, defense, and trial. In addition to the lack of substantive law basis, the path dependence in operation, and the insufficient guarantee of voluntariness. Pretrial criminal coercive measures also determine the result of the trial in a great degree. In summary, China should improve the system in the following two aspects: firstly, the criminal substantive law should provide powerful support for reconciliation. Secondly, the scopes for applications of reconciliation should be extended, pre-trial non custodial compulsory measures should be encouraged, voluntariness safeguarding mechanism should be reinforced, and the compensation evaluation of the second instance should be postponed to the enforcement stage.