近年来，社会科技的高速发展与公众权利的不断扩张，使决策者在积极主义刑法观的指引下推动犯罪化立法，加强刑事司法对于社会领域的干预和管控。诚然，犯罪化立法以其强势的扩张性提前介入了社会管控，在维护社会治安方面发挥了显著的功效，但伴随犯罪化而生的负面效应同样存在。由此，在轻罪治理的宏观背景之下，非犯罪化的制度改革成为了新时期刑事司法改革的重要议题，其中，裁量不起诉制度被赋予了高度期待。裁量不起诉作为起诉便宜主义的制度表现，相较起诉法定主义之下的不起诉形制而言，其设计中包含了更多的自由度与裁量空间，通过对不同语境下的制度比较，可以对裁量不起诉进行一定概括：其一，检察机关可以对于那些犯罪事实清楚且证据充分、不存在法定非罪化事由的案件行使起诉裁量权；其二，“裁量”并不包括对于法律适用、证据认定的判断，应当与“法律解释”“自由心证”相区分；其三，裁量应当基于一定的刑事政策、公共利益、行为人等因素进行“合目的性”考量；其四，在综合判断后，检察官应当具有选择是否不起诉或进行何种不起诉的权力。而关于轻罪这一程序标的而言，立足我国立法定性与立法定量的分析模式，区分法定的轻罪与事实的轻罪更符合本土语境，也与裁量不起诉内部的制度关系形成对应。以系统化视角看待轻罪裁量不起诉制度，可以对裁量不起诉的功能进行不同侧面的梳理：一方面，在刑事一体化的整体视角下，轻罪裁量不起诉制度具有程序性非罪化的重要功能，同时具有作为刑事政策载体的独特价值；而在刑事诉讼的内部视角下，酌定不起诉具有诉讼经济功能、刑事后果的规避功能，附条件不起诉制度具有不起诉结构化功能、刑罚替代功能、多元诉讼目的实现功能、审前分流与转处功能等。根据轻罪裁量不起诉制度功能的差异，可以为两者的应然关系进行初步的界定：第一，功能承载应当与制度匹配；第二，制度的适用范围应当体现梯度；第三，制度裁量因素应各有侧重。考察我国裁量不起诉制度的历史变迁，从免予起诉制度到酌定不起诉制度再到附条件不起诉制度，我国不起诉制度适用情况始终未达到较高水准，但随着近年来认罪认罚从宽制度、少捕慎诉刑事政策的推动，裁量不起诉制度有逐步隐性扩张的趋势。检视制度的规范问题与实践状况，可以对我国裁量不起诉的制度欠缺进行梳理：在覆盖范围层面，规制范围狭窄欠缺结构化；在功能样态层面，制度功能定位存在偏差，进而在司法资源等限制之下使得实践效果有待提升；在适用裁量关系层面，两种裁量不起诉制度的关系较为混沌、有待厘清。总体而言，如若我国刑事司法欲进一步提升裁量不起诉在轻罪治理中的治理效能，必然不能再通过制度小修小补的“补丁化”设计来实现，裁量不起诉面临体系化的整合。从功能角度出发，遵循基本规律，尊重制度间的差异与共性，当下裁量不起诉的制度厘革应当将酌定不起诉与附条件不起诉共同纳入我国轻罪裁量不起诉的体系之中，并在对功能进行深层次分析的基础上，为两种制度设置阶梯化、差异化的适用范围，确立相互独立的进阶式适用关系，采取阶层化的判断路径，同时完善制度运行的相关程序保障机制，从而为不起诉治理功能的发挥提供制度支持。

In recent years, the rapid development of social science and technology and the continuous expansion of public rights make decision makers promote criminalization legislation under the guidance of the active view of criminal law, and strengthen the intervention and control of criminal justice in the social field. Indeed, criminal legislation with its strong expansion early intervention in social control, in maintaining social security played a significant effect, but with the negative effects of criminal also exist, such as the criminal justice system running overload, imprisonment highly applicable, special prevention effect, penalty spillover effect, and so on. Therefore, under the macro background of misdemeanor governance, the non-criminal system reform has become an important issue of the criminal justice reform in the new era, among which the system of discretionary non-prosecution has been given a high expectation.

Discretionary non-prosecution as an institutional manifestation of the prosecution of cheap, In contrast to the non-prosecution system under the statutory doctrine of prosecution, The design of the discretionary nonprosecution system includes more freedom and discretionary space. By comparing the systems in different contexts: 10 Second of these, "discretion" does not include judgment on the application of law and the determination of evidence, It should be distinguished from "legal interpretation" and "free heart evidence"; "Third, there is no," The discretion should be based on certain criminal policies, public interests, actors and other factors for the "joint purpose" consideration; Its four, After a comprehensive judgment, A public prosecutor shall have the power to choose whether or not to prosecute or how not to prosecute. As for the procedural object of misdemeanor, based on the analysis mode of qualitative and quantitative legislation in China, the distinction between legal misdemeanor and factual misdemeanor is more in line with the local context, and also corresponds with the internal institutional relationship of discretionary non-prosecution.

On the one hand, in the overall perspective of criminal integration, the important function of procedural non-crime, and the unique value as the carrier of criminal policy. However, in the internal perspective of criminal prosecution, the function of litigation economy and criminal consequences, and the conditional non-prosecution system has the structured function of nonprosecution, the alternative function of criminal punishment, the function of multiple litigation purpose, the function of pre-trial diversion and diversion, etc. According to the difference in the functions of the system of petty discretion, the bearing of the functions of the two should match the system; second, the application scope of the system should reflect the gradient; third, the institutional discretion factors should have different emphasis.

Investigate the historical change of the discretion not to prosecution system in our country, from exempted from prosecution system to discretionary not prosecution system to conditional not prosecution system, not prosecution system in our country has not reached a high level, but as confessed to forfeit greater system, less catch v. criminal policy, discretion not prosecution system has the trend of gradually recessive expansion. Examining the normative problems and practice conditions of the system in China: in the coverage scope, the regulation scope is narrow and unstructured; in the functional level, the system function orientation deviates, and the practice effect is needed to be improved under the limitation of judicial resources, the relationship between the two systems of discretionary non-prosecution is chaotic and needs to be clarified.

In general, if China's criminal justice wants to further improve the governance efficiency of the discretionary non-prosecution in the misdemeanor governance, it must not be realized through the "patch" design of institutional minor repairs, and the discretionary non-prosecution will face systematic integration. From the perspective of function, follow the basic law, respect the differences between the system and common, the present discretion not to Sue system of leather should discretionary not Sue and conditional not to discretion not prosecution system, and according to the function difference for the scope of ladder, establish the independent advanced type applicable relationship, take hierarchical judgment path, at the same time of perfecting the system of related procedure guarantee mechanism, to provide system support for not prosecute governance function.