中共十八届四中全会通过的《中共中央关于全面推进依法治国若干重大问题的决定》提出要“完善刑事诉讼中认罪认罚从宽制度”。认罪认罚从宽制度是一项集合性制度，包括若干刑事法律“子制度”，具体又由众多刑法规范、刑事诉讼法规范和刑事执行法规范组成，甚至还包含刑事政策的元素。因此，完善认罪认罚从宽制度，是一项牵一发而动全身的系统工程。本书尝试以一种改革的思维对认罪认罚从宽制度进行研究，本书的“改革思维”主要体现在以下几个方面。

第一，以规范的视角对改革进行解读。认罪认罚从宽制度改革比较好地处理了改革与法治的辩证关系——在法治下推进改革，在改革中完善法治，强调要运用法治思维和法治方式深化改革，实现认罪认罚从宽制度改革的法治化。在继承原有政策、制度、司法实践与改革的基础上，本轮认罪认罚从宽制度改革在许多方面实现发展创新，特别是发展了宽严相济刑事政策、拓展了量刑规则与刑罚理论、推进了程序分流机制体系化进程以及形成了全面合作性刑事司法模式。从改革进程来看，本轮认罪认罚从宽制度经历了政治决策、立法授权、地方试点实践、法律修改与全面改革等阶段，形成了比较独特的改革模式。认罪认罚从宽制度试点改革期间，中央与地方均制定了大量规则，形成了控辩协商、特殊不起诉、值班律师、特殊量刑规则等制度，这些制度性成果大部分被 2018年修改后的《刑事诉讼法》所吸收。虽然2018年修改后的《刑事诉讼法》正式规定了认罪认罚制度，但这只意味着改革进入了全面实施阶段，并不意味着改革已经完全结束，未来还要在实践探索中继续完善认罪认罚从宽制度。

第二，以实践的视角对改革特别是试点改革进行总结。认罪认罚从宽制度改革较好地坚持了“顶层设计和基层探索相结合”的改革方法论，鼓励试点地方进行制度创新与实践探索。本着“实践是检验真理的唯一标准”这一精神，本书对第一轮刑事速裁程序试点实践和认罪认罚从宽制度改革试点实践进行了考察与总结。改革在提高办案效率、优化司法资源配置、保障被追诉者合法权益、促进刑事案件律师辩护全覆盖等方面发挥了重要作用。然而，改革也存在不少微观、中观和宏观上的问题。尤其是暗度陈仓的认罚机制、前途未卜的从宽机制以及危机四伏的从快机制等使改革仍然存在一定的风险。

第三，以法理的视角对改革进行理论构建，为未来改革建言献策。认罪认罚从宽制度改革意味着规则的构建，而规则构建必须坚持“科学立法”原则。为此，需要以问题为导向，坚持以科学的理论指导认罪认罚从宽规则的构建。

首先，从法理上而言，“认罚”意味着中国特色认罪协商机制，我国法律应当予以正式承认。“认罚”作为一个词语所可能表达的含义，与“认罚”作为一个法律概念所具有的含义，是两个不同范畴的问题。我国刑事诉讼法中的“认罚”是指被追诉人对检察机关提出的处罚方案的认可。认罚的核心要义是协商式量刑建议，“协商”是“认罚”的本质要求。借鉴国外不同版本的认罪协商规则，我国在构建认罪协商机制时，首要的是从义务本位主义走向权利本位主义，然后需要从有效辩护等方面着手构建科学合理的控辩协商规则。

其次，“从宽”概念看似简单，但需要结合刑事法学基本理论与认罪认罚从宽制度才能准确地把握其科学内涵。从宽处理既包括刑法意义上的从宽处罚，也包括刑事诉讼法意义上的从宽处理（包括适用非羁押性强制措施、撤案和不起诉等），甚至还包括刑事执行法意义上的从宽待遇（如留所服刑、从宽监管等），但程序从简/从快不属于“从宽处理”。就规则构建而言，目前需要认真考虑的方向包括：第一，扩大附条件不起诉制度的适用范围，将其作为轻微犯罪的一种重要治理对策；与此同时取消改革中有关“撤案”的做法。第二，从制度和实践两方面着手，扩大取保候审制度的功能与适用率。第三，反思“留所服刑”（由看守所代为执行剩余刑期在三个月以下的有期徒刑）的做法，可以考虑将其作为“从宽处理”的一个举措。第四，“认罪认罚”的概念不一定要写入刑法，但刑法中应当将“犯罪后态度”作为一般性的量刑情节。

最后，改革要坚持正确的效率观，实现更高层次的公正与效率的统一。除“审判从简模式”外，诉讼“从快”的实现方式还包括权力扩张模式、结构变革模式、权利保障模式和科技促进模式，因此不能将效率提高直接等同于审判程序从简。在构建诉讼从快规则时，我们需要处理好效率与公正、权力与权利之间的关系。虽然证明的程序有所简化，但需要坚持法定的证明标准不动摇。值班律师制度虽然发挥了重要作用，但只是律师辩护全覆盖的最低标准。因此，一要提高值班律师的定位与作用，明确其“辩护人”的属性；二要提高法律援助水平，扩大强制辩护的适用范围。认罪认罚案件审判程序也要体现“以审判为中心”，书面审具有合理性与可行性，庭审程序中要对“认罪认罚的自愿性和认罪认罚具结书内容的真实性、合法性”进行实质性审查，同时还要坚持二审终审制。

The Decision of the Central Committee of the Communist Party of China on Several Major Issues Concerning Comprehensively Promoting the Rule of Law Adopted by the Fourth Plenary Session of the 18th Central Committee of the Communist Party of China calls for "improving the system of leniency in admitting guilt and accepting punishment in criminal proceedings." The leniency system for guilty pleas and punishment is a collective system, including a number of criminal law "subsystems", which are specifically composed of numerous criminal law norms, criminal procedure law norms and criminal enforcement law norms, and even contain elements of criminal policy. Therefore, improving the system of leniency in admitting guilt and accepting punishment is a systematic project that affects the whole body. This book attempts to study the leniency system of guilty pleas and punishment with a reform thinking, and the "reform thinking" of this book is mainly reflected in the following aspects. First, interpret the reform from a normative perspective. The reform of the lenient system of confessing guilt and accepting punishment has better handled the dialectical relationship between reform and the rule of law - promoting reform under the rule of law, improving the rule of law in the process of reform, emphasizing the need to use rule of law thinking and methods to deepen reform, and realize the rule of law reform of the system of leniency in admitting guilt and accepting punishment. On the basis of inheriting the original policies, systems, judicial practices and reforms, the current round of reform of the leniency system for guilty pleas and punishment has achieved development and innovation in many aspects, especially the development of the criminal policy of combining leniency and strictness, the expansion of sentencing rules and sentencing theories, the systematization of procedural diversion mechanisms, and the formation of a comprehensive cooperative criminal justice model. From the perspective of the reform process, the current round of leniency system for guilty pleas and punishment has gone through stages such as political decision-making, legislative authorization, local pilot practice, legal revision and comprehensive reform, forming a relatively unique reform model. During the pilot reform of the leniency system for guilty pleas and punishments, both the central and local governments formulated a large number of rules, forming systems such as prosecution and defense consultation, special non-prosecution, duty lawyers, and special sentencing rules, and most of these institutional achievements were absorbed by the revised Criminal Procedure Law in 2018. Although the revised Criminal Procedure Law in 2018 formally stipulates the plea system, this only means that the reform has entered the stage of full implementation, which does not mean that the reform has completely ended, and it is necessary to continue to improve the leniency system for plea and punishment in the future in practical exploration. Second, summarize the reforms, especially the pilot reforms, from a practical perspective. The reform of the lenient system of confessing guilt and accepting punishment has better adhered to the reform methodology of "combining top-level design and grassroots exploration", and encouraged pilot localities to carry out institutional innovation and practical exploration. In the spirit of "practice is the only criterion for testing truth", this book examines and summarizes the pilot practice of the first round of criminal expedited judgment procedures and the pilot practice of reforming the lenient system of guilty plea and punishment. The reform has played an important role in improving case-handling efficiency, optimizing the allocation of judicial resources, protecting the lawful rights and interests of those being prosecuted, and promoting full coverage of defense by lawyers in criminal cases. However, there are also many micro, meso and macro problems in reform. In particular, the punishment recognition mechanism, the leniency mechanism with an uncertain future, and the fast-track mechanism with a crisis-ridden situation still pose certain risks to reform. Third, it constructs the theory of reform from the perspective of jurisprudence and provides suggestions for future reform. The reform of the leniency system for guilty pleas and punishment means the construction of rules, and the construction of rules must adhere to the principle of "scientific legislation". To this end, it is necessary to be problem-oriented and adhere to scientific theories to guide the construction of lenient rules for confessing guilt and accepting punishment. First of all, from a legal point of view, "admitting punishment" means a consultation mechanism with Chinese characteristics for confession, which should be formally recognized by Chinese law. The possible meaning of "confession of punishment" as a term and the meaning of "admission of punishment" as a legal concept are two different categories of issues. "Admission of punishment" in China's Criminal Procedure Law refers to the defendant's approval of the punishment plan proposed by the procuratorial organ. The core essence of punishment is the consultation sentencing recommendation, and "consultation" is the essential requirement of "punishment". Drawing on different versions of foreign plea negotiation rules, when constructing a plea consultation mechanism in China, the first thing is to move from obligation-based to rights-based, and then it is necessary to build scientific and reasonable prosecution and defense negotiation rules from the aspects of effective defense. Secondly, the concept of "leniency" seems simple, but it needs to combine the basic theory of criminal law with the leniency system of guilty pleas and punishment in order to accurately grasp its scientific connotation. Leniency includes lenient punishment in the sense of criminal law, leniency in the sense of criminal procedure law (including the application of non-custodial compulsory measures, withdrawal of cases, non-prosecution, etc.), and even lenient treatment in the sense of criminal enforcement law (such as staying in a place to serve sentence, lenient supervision, etc.), but the simplified/fast procedure does not constitute "lenient treatment". As far as rule construction is concerned, the directions that need to be carefully considered at present include: first, expanding the scope of application of the conditional non-prosecution system as an important governance measure for petty crimes; At the same time, the practice of "withdrawing cases" in the reform was abolished. Second, from both the aspects of system and practice, expand the function and application rate of the bail pending trial system. Third, reflect on the practice of "serving sentences in a detention center" (where detention centers serve fixed-term sentences with the remaining sentences of less than three months) and consider this as a measure of "leniency." Fourth, the concept of "admitting guilt and accepting punishment" does not have to be included in the criminal law, but the "attitude after the crime" should be taken as a general sentencing circumstance in the criminal law. Finally, reform should adhere to the correct concept of efficiency and achieve a higher level of unity between justice and efficiency. In addition to the "simplified trial model", the realization of "fast trial" litigation also includes the power expansion model, the structural change model, the rights protection model and the science and technology promotion model, so the efficiency improvement cannot be directly equated with the simplification of trial procedures. When constructing the rules for speeding up litigation, we need to deal with the relationship between efficiency and fairness, power and rights. Although the certification procedure has been simplified, there is a need to adhere to the statutory standard of proof. Although the duty lawyer system plays an important role, it is only the minimum standard for full coverage of lawyers' defense. Therefore, first, it is necessary to improve the positioning and role of duty lawyers and clarify their attributes as "defenders"; Second, it is necessary to raise the level of legal aid and expand the scope of application of compulsory defense. The trial procedures of plea cases should also reflect "trial-centered", written trials should be reasonable and feasible, and substantive reviews should be conducted in court procedures for "the voluntariness of pleas of guilt and punishment and the authenticity and legality of the content of the plea and punishment statement", and at the same time, the system of final trial of the second instance should be adhered to.（AI翻译）