認罪認罰情節的立法完善

認罪認罰情節是認罪認罰從寬制度構建與運行的核心實體要素，在我國現行刑事法立法體系中屬酌定量刑情節。司法機關依據現有立法精神所構建的“認罪”“認罰”“從寬”等實體規則，因對其所蘊含的多元實體從寬正當性根據、合理的禁止重複評價原則以及新時代寬嚴相濟政策闡釋不足，不當限縮了從寬處罰幅度，實際排除了減輕處罰、免除處罰的適用空間，進而導致實體從寬功能虛化、實踐效果弱化。為充分發揮認罪認罰情節在認罪認罰從寬制度構建與運行中的功能與價值，應立足契合刑事法治新發展的新併合主義、彰顯實體公正的禁止重複評價原則、順應犯罪治理現代化的寬嚴相濟政策，對其進行系統性立法完善，包括對認罪認罰情節的成立條件予以刑事一體化改造，對其與相關量刑情節的關係予以厘清，對其情節地位予以法定化，對其上位實體制度予以原則化確立。

The circumstance of pleading guilty and accepting punishment constitutes the core substantive element in the construction and operation of the system of leniency for pleading guilty and accepting punishment and, within the current legislative framework of Chinese criminal law, is classified as a discretionary sentencing circumstance. The substantive rules of“pleading guilty,”“accepting punishment,”and“leniency”constructed by judicial authorities on the basis of the spirit of the existing legislation, due to insufficient interpretation of the multiple substantive justifications underlying leniency, the reasonable principle of prohibition of double evaluation, and the policy of balancing leniency and severity in the new era, have improperly restricted the scope of lenient punishment, effectively excluding the application of mitigated punishment and exemption from punishment, thereby leading to the hollowing out of the substantive function of leniency and the weakening of its practical effects. In order to fully realize the function and value of the circumstance of pleading guilty and accepting punishment in the construction and operation of the system of leniency for pleading guilty and accepting punishment, systematic legislative improvement should be undertaken in accordance with the new syncretism that conforms to the new development of criminal rule of law, the principle of prohibition of double evaluation that highlights substantive justice, and the policy of balancing leniency and severity that responds to the modernization of crime governance, including reforming the conditions for establishing the circumstance of pleading guilty and accepting punishment through an integrated criminal law approach, clarifying its relationship with related sentencing circumstances, legalizing its status as a sentencing circumstance, and establishing its superior substantive institutional framework in principle.