When a defendant pleads guilty to a criminal charge against them their conviction may be justified on the basis of autonomy rather than accuracy. In this context, autonomy can make the difference between a legitimate conviction and the breach of fundamental rights. However, autonomy in this context is not clearly defined. This article argues, based on philosophical conceptions of autonomy and empirical realities, that true autonomy is an ideal rather than a practical reality. It considers the level of autonomy necessary to legitimise a criminal conviction via plea, and suggests that current conceptions of autonomy are inadequate since they rely on a formalistic autonomy ‘myth’, presuming autonomy in the absence of threats. An analysis drawing on original empirical data from two studies demonstrates how autonomy may be being depleted to unacceptable levels in the current system. The article concludes by presenting reform proposals.

中文翻译：

---

认罪决定：超越自治神话

当被告对针对他们的刑事指控认罪时，他们的定罪可能是基于自主而非准确性。在这种情况下，自治可以区分合法定罪和违反基本权利。但是，在这种情况下的自治没有明确定义。本文基于自治的哲学概念和经验现实，认为真正的自治是一种理想而不是实际的现实。它考虑了通过认罪使刑事定罪合法化所必需的自治水平，并表明当前的自治概念是不充分的，因为它们依赖于形式上的自治“神话”，即在没有威胁的情况下假定自治。一项基于两项研究的原始经验数据的分析表明，在当前系统中，自治可能会被耗尽到无法接受的水平。文章最后提出了改革建议。