摘要： 本轮《刑事诉讼法》修改，吸收了试点中的认罪认罚从宽制度。但修改《决定》设计的条文导致认罪认罚从宽制度在宏观结构上出现问题，具体包括：“具结书”仅是对犯罪嫌疑人、被告人的约束，检察机关在审判过程中可以调整量刑建议，造成控辩双方之间权力(利)、地位不对等；要求审判主体“一般应当”采纳人民检察院指控的罪名和量刑建议，触动人民法院依法独立行使职权原则；公安机关被不当赋予撤销案件的裁量权；值班律师地位、权利不明朗。认罪认罚从宽制度以“自愿性”为生命线，然而在刑事诉讼法中，保证犯罪嫌疑人、被告人自愿认罪的程序机制却严重不足。犯罪嫌疑人、被告人在认罪认罚制度中脆弱的地位，是中国刑事诉讼中缺失一系列重要权利保障的现状的投影。在控辩地位严重不对等前提下的认罪认罚制度，可能会招致一些特殊的风险。只有在健康的诉讼环境下才能有健康的认罪认罚从宽制度。

关键词: 认罪认罚从宽, 宏观结构, 控辩关系, 值班律师

Abstract: The amendment draft introduces system of leniency on admission of guilt and acceptance of punishment in pilot program, but has some problems in the macro-structure of the system, including that recognizance only binds the suspect or defendant, on the meanwhile the procuratorate has the option to adjust its sentence recommendation; that the court generally shall adopt the charge and sentence recommendation from the procuratorate; that the police is invested discretion in withdrawing the case; that duty lawyer enjoys limited rights.A ideal structure should be, the prosecution and the defense are relatively equal; the agreement between them is not binding, but the procuratorate should abide by it in principle.On the contrary, the agreement should not bind the court.There is no theoretical basis for the police to enjoy discretion in withdrawing cases.Since duty lawyers are defined as defender, they should enjoy complete rights to guarantee the suspect or defendant option to admit guilt and accept sentence knowingly(intelligently)and voluntarily.

Key words: Leniency on Admission of Guilt and Acceptance of Punishment, Macro-structure, Relationship between the Prosecution and the Defense, Discretion, Duty Lawyer