摘要
国家慎诉刑事司法政策的确立和实施,是实质性开启程序性规模化出罪进程并将此类出罪固定为司法常态的根本原因。我国刑事法律实际构建了刑事政策主导的分层出罪制度,属于程序性相对非罪化处断的情节显著轻微不起诉和酌定不起诉,是受刑事司法政策双重叠加作用的出罪方式,在整个分层出罪制度中的地位举足轻重。实定法秩序上,支配程序性规模化出罪的实际控制标准,是“根据刑事司法政策不需要判处刑罚”;支撑程序性规模化出罪的基本制度,是以刑罚需罚性为决定性条件的起诉裁量制度。慎诉刑事司法政策,是明确针对轻微犯罪、以实现程序性规模化出罪为主旨的专门刑事司法政策;实现立法入刑与司法出罪的适度制衡,避免落入微罪轻罪陷阱,优化刑事司法的犯罪惩治与犯罪治理之间的协调关系,是慎诉刑事司法政策无以替代的固有功能和核心价值。实体规范根本无法为程序性规模化出罪提供必要的制度支撑。实体规范中的入罪标准与程序规范中的出罪标准,是不同层面的标准,是具有不同功能、解决不同问题的标准,入罪标准是成立犯罪的标准,具有严格限制入罪判断的功能;出罪标准是在行为成立犯罪的前提下,判断公诉必要性的标准,具有审前程序分流、司法相对非罪化处断的功能。实体性入罪标准与程序性出罪标准的关系,实际可以简化为刑罚可罚性与刑罚需罚性的关系。细化程序性出罪必备条件,强化刑罚替代措施附加适用,杜绝检察裁决权违规行使,是规范推进程序性规模化出罪的重要措施。其中,将“符合公共利益”增加为适用酌定不起诉的必备条件,基于司法现实确定“可以免除刑罚”的实际控制上限,是关键性的具体措施。
The establishment and implementation of the national criminal justice policy of“more cautious prosecution”is the fundamental reason for substantively starting the process of procedural decriminalization at scale and fixing such decriminalization as the judicial norm.The hierarchical decriminalization system led by criminal policy has actually been established in Chinese criminal law,which belongs to the procedural relative decriminalizing judgment of non-prosecution with obviously minor and discretionary non-prosecution.Meanwhile,it is a model of decriminalization subject to the double-overlapping effect of criminal justice policy and is pivotal in the overall hierarchical decriminalization system.In the order of the positive law,the actual control criterion governing the procedural decriminalization at scale is“no penalties required under the criminal justice policy”,and the basic system supporting it is the prosecutorial discretion system with necessity for criminal penalty as the prerequisite.As a specialized criminal justice policy,the policy targets minor crimes and takes the procedural decriminalization at scale as its main objective.It has the irreplaceably inherent function and core value of striking the appropriate balance between legislative listing as criminal offence and judicial decriminalization,avoiding falling into the pitfalls of petty misdemeanor and misdemeanor,and optimizing the coordination between sanctioning and governance of criminal justice.Obviously,substantive norms simply cannot provide the necessary institutional support for procedural decriminalization at scale as the standard of incrimination in the substantive norms and the standard of decriminalization in the procedural norms are different in level,function and issues.The former aims at establishing the crime and has the function of strictly limiting the judgment of incrimination,while the latter aims at judging the necessity of public prosecution under the premise of established crime and has the function of pre-trial procedures diversion and judicial relative decriminalizing judgment.The relationship between them can actually be reduced to the relationship between the punishability and the necessity for criminal penalty.The important measures to normatively promote the process include refining the necessary conditions for procedural decriminalization,strengthening the additional application of alternative measures of penalty,and eliminating the irregular exercise of procuratorial discretion.Thereinto,key measures are supplementing“consistent with the public interest”as a requirement for the application of discretionary non-prosecution and establishing a realistic upper limit of control over“exempt from punishment”based on judicial reality.
出处
《公安学研究》
CSSCI
2023年第1期1-21,123,共22页
Journal of Public Security Science
基金
北京市社会科学基金青年项目“刑法中的轻微犯罪制度研究”(16FXC028)
