南昌大学学报（人文社会科学版）

刑事司法要走出无罪判决率偏低的困局，关键在于避免程序控制模式对无罪判决的抑制，构建无罪判决生成的实体控制模式。程序控制模式衍生程序惯性，这导致部分场景下“留有余地”的有罪判决替代无罪判决，使得无罪判决逐渐陷入休眠状态。实体控制模式可以弥补程序控制模式的短板，其依据实质的罪刑法定原则为刑事司法在实体上划出一个不定罪空间，并通过倾斜性的制度激励，唤醒和承载无罪判决，以有效反制结果归罪及刑法侵越其他部门法的现象。为了合法且合理地激活无罪判决，实体控制模式需要通过三条运行路径实现：一是在前置法与刑法关系维度，通过不法梯度原理阻断拔高定罪；二是在刑法本体维度，通过实质法益判断防止模糊定罪；三是在刑事政策维度，通过刑事实质刺破形式外观健全穿透出罪规则。

To address the persistent low rate of acquittals in criminal justice, it is crucial to curb the suppressive effect of the procedural control model and construct a substantive control model for the generation of acquittals. The procedural control model gives rise to procedural inertia, which leads to the substitution of acquittals with compromise guilty verdicts in specific judicial scenarios and renders acquittal rulings increasingly dormant. The substantive control model can make up for the deficiencies of the procedural model. Drawing on the substantive principle of legality in criminal law, it delineates a space for non-conviction in substantive criminal justice. Through preferential institutional incentives, this model revives and sustains acquittal rulings, effectively countering result-based imputation and the encroachment of criminal law on other branches of law. The legitimate and reasonable activation of acquittals relies on three operational pathways of the substantive control model. First, from the dimension of the relationship between pre-criminal laws and criminal law, the gradation principle of unlawfulness blocks the upward expansion of criminalization. Second, within the framework of criminal law, substantive assessment of legal interests prevents vague criminalization. Third, from the perspective of criminal policy, substantive criminal evaluation pierces formal appearances, giving rise to exculpatory rules through a look-through adjudicative approach.