THE PROBLEM OF VOLUNTARINESS AND COERCION IN THE NEGOTIATED PLEA
THE PROBLEM OF VOLUNTARINESS AND COERCION IN THE NEGOTIATED PLEA
复制标题
谈判抗辩中的自愿与强迫问题
DOI：
--
复制
发表时间：
1979
期刊：
影响因子：
--
通讯作者：
C. Brunk
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
C. Brunk
本文重点讨论的是一个狭义的问题，即检察机关或司法机关通过谈判为刑事被告减轻指控或判刑以换取认罪是否会使认罪成为“非自愿的”。“我开始首先澄清一般选择被视为自愿或被迫的条件。在第二部分中，我将根据自愿选择的一般理论来衡量辩诉交易的实践。我认为，一个协商认罪本质上不是非自愿的，但许多条件通常是辩诉交易的一部分，可能会使它成为这样。只有当这些条件能够并且已经消除时，谈判达成的抗辩才能免受胁迫指控。我还表明，公开的“威胁”起诉或司法报复不是唯一的方式迫使认罪。在某些情况下，表面上的宽大处理“提议”也可能是胁迫性的。在过去几年里，关于辩诉交易做法是否适当的辩论愈演愈烈。辩论涉及广泛的问题，例如这种做法是否符合正当程序和法律的平等保护，是否符合对抗程序的理论假设，是否损害审判的准确性，是否减少对司法程序的尊重，以及是否对审判权造成负担或侵犯反对自证其罪的权利。除了这些程序公平的考虑之外，一些批评者还认为，这种做法对社会不公平，因为它产生的判决过于宽松，以至于违背了刑事司法系统的目标（基普尼斯，1976年）。虽然其中大部分都是重要而深刻的问题，
This paper focuses on the narrow question whether prosecutorial or judicial negotiation of a reduced charge or sentence for a criminal defendant in exchange for a guilty plea renders the plea "involuntary." I begin by clarifying the conditions under which choices in general are considered voluntary or coerced. In Part II, I measure the practice of plea bargaining against this general theory of voluntary choice. I argue that a negotiated guilty plea is not intrinsically involuntary but that many of the conditions commonly a part of plea bargaining may render it so. The negotiated plea can be defended from the charge of coercion only if these conditions can be, and are, eliminated. I also show that overt "threats" of prosecutorial or judicial reprisal are not the only way of coercing a guilty plea. Under certain conditions, apparent "offers" of leniency can be coercive as well. The past few years have witnessed an intensified debate over the propriety of the practice of plea bargaining. This debate has ranged over a broad spectrum of questions, such as whether the practice is consistent with due process and equal protection of law and with the theoretical assumptions of the adversarial process, whether it undermines the accuracy of trials, whether it reduces respect for the judicial process, and whether it places a burden on the right to trial or impinges upon the right against self-incrimination. In addition to these considerations of procedural fairness, some critics have argued that the practice is unfair to society because it produces sentences so lenient that they defeat the aims of the criminal justice system (Kipnis, 1976). Although most of these are important and profound ques