出刑是伴随着刑事诉讼制度改革持续推进而提出的一种理论构想，主要目的是为了实现刑法与刑事诉讼法的一体化融通，一定程度上化解刑法理论抱残守缺、刑事诉讼法理论自说自话的尴尬。出刑与入罪相关，但二者所关注的重点不同：入罪主要关注立法层面的犯罪圈扩张，出刑是犯罪圈扩张之后的善后措施，属犯罪圈扩大化之后的司法应对策略。出刑在形式上是为了缓解当前案多人少矛盾，实质上所要解决的是犯罪数量、特别是犯罪结构变化后罪轻而刑重、罪杂而刑单的罪刑不相称问题。 出刑指对符合刑法规定之犯罪成立条件的轻、微罪案件，在犯罪嫌疑人、被告人及被害人广泛参与后，司法机关认为不需要继续追究刑事责任或判处刑罚的，通过实体和程序相结合的方式，提前终结刑事案件或避免行为人被实际判决和执行刑罚的一系列司法行为过程及结果的总称。出刑是兼具实体性与程序性的概念，其实现路径表现也可从实体和程序两个方面理解。出刑与出罪不同，出罪是否定犯罪本身，目的在于将部分符合犯罪成立条件但情节显著轻微危害不大的行为排除出犯罪圈；出刑不否定犯罪成立本身，目的在于减少和规避刑罚的适用。出罪必然出刑，而出刑则未必出罪。对出罪问题的讨论，主要是为了更广泛和深入的讨论出刑问题。 出刑制度的建构具有充分的理论根据。法理支撑上，出刑以对轻、微罪行为的追诉为前提，实体上体现为将行为人因违反刑法规范所应当承担的刑事责任通过多样化的方式予以提前实现。虽然在形式上表现为不适用刑罚，看似没有实现刑事责任，但实际上是通过刑罚外的其他实体和程序性的方式实现了刑事责任。从程序上看，出刑能全面实现刑事程序的工具主义价值、本体主义价值和法社会学价值。政策支持上，出刑制度的前提预设认为犯罪是一种正常的社会现象，不是行为人单个人因素作用的结果，且除了负价值之外，也可能有正价值，应当坚持“具体问题具体讨论”的原则，结合案件的具体情况探讨案件发生的缘由及实现修复性刑事责任的最佳方式，保证社会关系得到修复的同时，惩罚和教育犯罪行为人，以实现预防犯罪和教育社会公众的目的；出刑是犯罪治理对策观的体现，是宽严相济刑事政策制度化的路径，属刑法谦抑性的最现实表达。社会认可上，出刑实践广泛存在且社会效果良好，其通过促使犯罪嫌疑人、被告人认罪悔罪、认罪认罚的形式，在寻求被害人、社区宽恕的同时，修复被犯罪行为破坏的社会关系，以解决社会中最为突出的矛盾冲突问题，实现各纠纷参与人的共赢。文化认同上，出刑不仅是明德慎罚思想的传承，也是礼刑结合传统的扬弃，更是法不治众观念的体现。 出刑制度在现有的刑事法律制度范围内，具有较为充分的法律根据。出刑是《刑法》第13条“但书”的司法化，这种司法化的体现并不是主张在犯罪构成之外另立出刑标准，而是在主张犯罪构成是认定犯罪之唯一标准的前提下，在刑事责任层面实现出刑，其不仅具有理论自恰性，也不会引发新的司法风险，更不会违背罪刑法定原则和阻碍司法公正的实现。《刑法》第37条前段不是有关独立量刑事由的规定，而是有关量刑规则的规定，能够在量刑原则、原理的范围内独立发挥免刑的作用，司法者能够根据该规定对刑事案件予以定罪免刑而出刑。《刑诉法》第7条规定保证了各机关办理刑事案件之职权的相对独立性的同时，一方面要求专门机关勤勉履行职责，形成递进制约关系，另一方面要求侦查机关和检察机关在办理刑事案件的过程中积极开展侦诉合作；分工负责是广泛出刑的前提，互相配合是高效出刑的要求，互相制约是出刑质量的保证。适用《刑诉法》第15条的实质条件是不需要继续追究刑事责任，不限于不追究刑罚责任，也不违反《刑法》“有罪必究”的原则，其为出刑制度的适用提供了实质条件。《刑诉法》第173条第2款规定了出刑的“罪行条件”和“刑罚条件”，依据该规定作出不起诉决定是出刑的最直接表达。 出刑不存在违反犯罪的应受刑罚惩罚性特征、轻纵犯罪、“以罚代刑”的问题，更不容易冤枉无辜，更能实现实质正义，有助于教育犯罪嫌疑人、被告人，确证刑事法律规范的权威性而不违背有罪必究的要求；刑罚从来就不是对犯罪的唯一反应，且随着社会的发展，“罪”已经能够独立于“刑”而具有了相对独立的意义，故出刑不是对刑法的摧毁，更不是对刑法的嘲弄，也不会解构刑法的边界；出刑的前提是犯罪嫌疑人、被告人的刑事责任已经实现或被免除，并不否定行为人的行为符合犯罪的成立条件，不会因为违反罪刑法定原则而侵犯犯罪嫌疑人、被告人的合法权益；出刑是为了实现实质上的平等适用刑法，其反对歧视，亦反对特权，主张触犯刑法规范的行为人都应当承担刑事责任，不会违背刑法适用平等原则；出刑之时司法机关并没有把犯罪嫌疑人、被告人当做罪犯，犯罪嫌疑人、被告人之所以承担不利负担是其自我决定和选择的结果，证明犯罪嫌疑人、被告人有罪的责任依然由司法机关承担，其所期望实现的目标与贯彻无罪推定原则所期望实现的目标具有一致性；出刑制度目标明确，监督较为有力，不会直接导致权力被滥用；出刑不至于过度侵犯犯罪嫌疑人、被告人的人权，也不至于过度放纵犯罪，相反，出刑能增强司法人员办理案件的能动性与理性，有助于增强侦查人员的程序意识。 出刑制度的付诸实施，应将转变观念、创新体制机制和完善刑事法律制度有机地结合起来，从观念、原则和制度等层面谋划具体的实现路径。观念层面应提倡合作性司法、主张能动性司法、贯彻恢复性司法、兼顾刑事诉讼中的公平与效率的同时积极关注行为人的因素。原则方面应当删除《刑法》第3条前段的内容，规定较为纯粹的罪刑法定原则；增设纠纷解决参与原则；增加规定恢复性正义原则。具体制度设计层面，应当根据犯罪的严重程度将犯罪分为微罪、轻罪、一级重罪、二级重罪及三级重罪（死罪）；在现行刑法第13条增加规定出刑的原则性依据；规定被害人参与的制度，明确被害人庭前参与权，强化被害人庭审参与权；赋予侦查机关出刑权力的同时，保证侦查机关出刑权的规范化配置，确保侦查机关出刑权得到有效的监督和制约；扩大公诉机关的不起诉权；通过删除《刑法》第63条第2款的形式，从实质上扩大司法机关的出刑权；通过增加保安处分措施、调整行政罚等非刑罚处罚措施的形式，完善出刑中的衔接制度。

The depenalization is a theoretical concept which is proposed in pace with the sustained progress of the criminal procedure system reform, its main purpose is to realize the integration between criminal law and criminal procedure law, and to melt the embarrassment between the insular criminal law theory and the self-talking criminal procedure law theory to a certain extent. The criminalization and the depenalization are two corresponding concepts, but their emphases are different: criminalization is mainly concerned with the expansion of the crime circle at the legislative level, and the depenalization is a rehabilitative measure and a judicial response strategy after the expansion of the crime circle. The formal purpose of depenalization is to remit the conflict between the superabundant cases and insufficient personnel, the substantial purpose is to solve problems such as the amount of crime and the imbalance between crime and punishment, which is caused by the conflicts between minor crime and severe punishment, diverse crimes and monotonous punishment especially after the changing of the structure of crime. The depenalization is a general term that refers to a series of process and result of judicial behavior, which aims to close criminal case ahead of time or prevent the defendant in minor or venial offense cases, whose behavior has met the requirement of being accused of a crime from being sentenced and executed a punishment actually, by the cooperation between substantive and procedure law, when the judicial authority considers that it is unnecessary to prosecute his/her criminal liability. The depenalization is a concept has both substantive and procedural features, and its path of performance can also be understood through both substantive and procedural aspects. The depenalization differs from decriminalization, as the decriminalization is a disavowal of criminalization and its purpose is to eliminate some conducts out of the crime circle, which meet the requirement of an offence but the circumstance is obviously minor and no serious harm has been caused; the depenalization does not deny the criminalization, its purpose is to reduce and avoid the implement of punishment. The decriminalization definitely causes the depenalization, but the decriminalization is not a certain result of the depenalization. The discuss about the decriminalization is mainly to give rise to the discuss about the depenalization wider and deeper. The construction of the depenalization has sufficient theoretical support. For the jurisprudential support, the precondition of this system is the prosecution of minor or venial offense, though outwardly the defendant takes no criminal liability because there’s no use of punishment, the criminal liability has been realized by non-criminal punishment in substantive or procedural way. For the procedure support, the depenalization can implement the value of the instrumentalism, the ontological value and the sociological value of the criminal procedure thoroughly. For the policy support, the depenalization believes that crime is not the result solely caused by individual factor but a normal social phenomenon, and there might be positive value besides negative value in it, therefore we should stick to the “case by case” principle and find the best solution of the implementation of rehabilitative criminal liability by discussing the cause based on the specific situation of the case, punish and educate the offender to realize the crime prevention and public education while insuring the recovery of social relationship; The depenalization is the embodiment of the concept of crime governance and the path of institutionalization of the criminal policy of tempering justice with mercy, which is the most realistic expression of the modesty of the criminal law. For the social acceptance, the practice of the depenalization exists widely and its social effect is very good. The system repairs the social relationship damaged by crime through the path of urging the criminal suspect or defendant to plead guilty with repentance and accept penalty in the form of seeking forgiveness from victims and community at the same time, so that to solve the most prominent problems in the social conflict and realize the win-win situation between every litigant participant. For the culture acceptance, the depenalization is not only the inheritance of the ideology “Ming De Shen Fa” ( which means educating people by virtue and punishing people restrainedly), but also the sublation of the tradition “Li Xing Jie He”(which means governing by the combination of courtesy and punishment) and the reflection of the ideology of “law does not punish numerous offenders”. In the scope of the existing criminal legal system, the depenalization has sufficient legal basis. The depenalization is the jurdicialization of the article 13 in the Criminal Code, this kind of jurdicialization does not promote to establish a new criterion out of the constitution of a crime, but to realize the exempt from punishment at the criminal liability level with the premise that the constitution of crime is the only standard for determining a crime, it not only has theoretical self-consistency but also cannot cause new juridical risk and violate the realization of the principle “nulla poena sine lege” and juridical justice. The forepart of the article 37 in Criminal Code is not a independent set for measurement of penalty but a rule for sentencing, which can play an independent role for the exempt from punishment in the scope of principles and theories about sentencing, and be used by judicial authority to realize the exempt from punishment by pardon the punishment after conviction in criminal case. The article 7 in the Criminal Procedure Law ensures the relative independence and the authority of the case-handling organs in criminal cases, and at the same time, for one thing this article requires the case-handling organs diligently fulfill their duties so that to form a progressive restrictive relation, for another thing it requires investigation and procuratorial organs actively carry out the cooperation of investigation and prosecution in the process of dealing with criminal cases; for the depenalization, the division of labor is the premise for its extensive using, the mutual cooperation is the requirement of its efficiency, and the mutual restriction is its guarantee of the quality. The substantial condition for the using of the article 15 in Criminal Procedure Law is that it is unnecessary to continue to pursue the criminal liability of the defendant, this condition does not limits to “do not pursue the criminal liability of punishment”, so it does not violate the principle of “guilty must be punished” of criminal law. The second clause of the article 173 in criminal procedure law stipulated the “ condition of guilt” and “the condition of punishment” for the exempt from punishment, it is the direct expression of the depenalization that to make the decision of exempt from punishment according to this clause. The depenalization is not only having no risk for violating the feature of culpable of punishment and indulgencing crime or injustice, but also is good for implementing the substantive justice easier, educating the suspect or defendant and ensuring the authority of criminal law, so that to preventing the violation of the principle of “guilty must be punished”; punishment never should be the only reaction to crime, and “guilt” has already developed its independent significance from “punishment” as long with the development of society, therefore the depenalization is not the doom nor the mocking of criminal law, and will not deconstruct the border of the criminal law neither; the premise of the depenalization is the criminal liability of suspect or defendant has been realized or pardoned, it does not deny the fact that the offender’s behavior matches the conditions of the establishment of crimes, and will not infringe the legal interests of suspect or defendant by violating the principle of “nulla poena sine lege”, the exempt of punishment system aims to implement the substantive equal apply of criminal law, objects to the discrimination and privilege, promotes that whoever violate the criminal law should take the criminal liability; when the exempt of punishment system is applied, the judicial authority does not take the suspect or defendant as criminal, and it is the result of the choice by the suspects or defendants that they have to take the adverse consequences, which proves the responsibility of proving the suspects or defendants are guilty is still taken by the judicial authority, the expecting purpose of the depenalization and the aim of carrying out the principle of presumption of innocence are identical; the depenalization has explicit purpose and strong supervision, will not cause the abuse of power directly; the depenalization will not infringe the right of suspects or defendants and indulge crime overmuch, on the contrary, this system can strengthen the activity and ration of judicial officials during handling cases, and reinforce the consciousness of procedure of investigator. As to fulfill the depenalization, we should combine the change of ideas, the innovation of system and institution, and the criminal law system together perfectly, design the path of implement at the ideology, principle and system level. At the ideology level, we should promote the cooperative justice and the active justice, implement the restorative justice and the principle of giving due consideration to both efficiency and fairness when positively pay attention to the element of offender. At the principle level, we should delete the forepart of the article 3 in Criminal Code, and stipulate a purer principle of “nulla poena sine lege”; add the principle of dispute settlement participation; add the principle of rehabilitative justice. At the specific system design level, we should divide crime into venial crime, minor crime, the first degree felony, the second degree felony and the third degree felony(death penalty) according to the order of severity of crime; add the principle of the exempt of punishment into the article 13 in Criminal Code; establish the participation of victim system, clarify the participation right before trial of victim, enhance the participation right during trial of victim; while giving the right and insurance of the normalized allocation of exempting from punishment to investigation authority, make sure the this right get effective supervision and limitation; extend the right of non prosecution of prosecution authority; substantively expand the right of exempting from punishment of the judicial authority by deleting the second clause of the article 63 in Criminal Code; perfect the cohesive system of depenalization by increasing measures of security, adjusting the form of administrative punishment and other non-criminal punishments.