青少年犯罪问题

域外“积极确认效力型”“保守待定效力型”“折中相对效力型”的典型量刑协商效力模型表明，量刑协商拘束力与刑事诉讼模式及司法权力组织结构存在明显的互动关系，我国更接近“折中相对效力型”。《刑事诉讼法》第201条仅赋予量刑协商结果“一般应当”的效力，未确立对法院的绝对拘束力，“一般应当”“例外”“明显不当”语义的模糊性及逻辑错乱引发司法实务诸多争议。认罪认罚从宽制度的价值要求控辩量刑协商结果应具有确定拘束力，当前理论囿于“结果论”点对点式的法哲学思维未能合理揭示量刑协商刚性拘束的正当性问题。刚性拘束效力的实现在于控审合意达成的弹性互动过程中，与正当法律程序理念有机契合的“过程论”为刚性拘束力正当性诠释提供全新视域，告知程序及起诉变更程序为量刑协商的拘束刚性提供张力空间。

The typical sentencing negotiation effectiveness models, "positive confirmation effectiveness type", "conservative pending effectiveness type" and "compromise relative effectiveness type", show that there is a clear interactive relationship between the binding effect of sentencing negotiation and, the type of criminal procedure model and the organisational structure of judicial power, and our country is closer to the third model. Article 201 of the Criminal Procedure Law of the People′s Republic of China only gives the results of the sentencing negotiation the effect of "should generally", without establishing absolute binding force on the court. The semantic ambiguity and logical confusion of "should generally", "exceptions" and "clearly improper" triggered many disputes in judicial practice. The value of the leniency system for pleading guilty and accepting punishment requires that the results of sentencing negotiations between the prosecution and the defence should have a definite binding effect, and current theories are confined to a point-counterpoint philosophy of law that is "consequentialism", which fails to reasonably reveal the legitimacy of the rigid binding effect of sentencing negotiations. In fact, the realisation of the rigid binding effect lies in the flexible interaction process between the prosecution and the trial in reaching a consensus. The "processualism", which organically fits with the concept of due process, provides a whole new perspective on the justification of the rigid binding effect, and the notification procedure and the procedure for changing the charges provide space for tension in the rigid binding effect of sentencing negotiation.