Study On Solid Evidence In China's Summary Procedure Of Criminal Litigation

Summary procedure originated in the contradiction between the increasing lawsuits and limited legal resources. To achieve procedural justice, and improve the efficiency as well, the only way is to simplify the due procedure. Many countries and regions, which are carrying out the simplification of judicial procedure in succession with the global spreading reform of criminal judicature, have contributed to the enrichment of the connotation of summary procedure. Summary procedure, which has been regulated in the criminal procedure laws in the UK, the USA, France, Germany, Italy, Japan and some regions in China such as Hong Kong, Taiwan and Macao, can be classified in general as three types, according to different countries' situations of legislation and prosecution: plea bargaining belonging to common law system, the penal order belonging to the continental law system and mixed procedure in Italian law. Although regulations on summary procedure are different in different countries and regions based on their own specific cultural and legal tradition, as a whole they tend to more widely apply while their diversity is exposed. Regulations laid down for summary procedure of criminal litigation can be found now in Clause 174 of China's criminal procedure law amended, which shows the procedure's application in 3 types of cases below:1. public prosecuting cases that may be decided under sentence of imprisonment less than 3 years, detention, control, or mulct obeying the law, which offers corroborated facts and irrefutable evidence and has been advised or permitted by Prosecutor's Office to be dealt out to summary procedure;2. cases accepted at complaint only;3. criminal cases proved a minor one and prosecuted by their victims.For the reason that the only 5 clauses about summary procedure in China's criminal procedure law show too principled to be operated easily, China has issued in succession several documents for related legal interpretation and those prosecutor's offices at the basic level and grassroots courts also have universally taken it seriously. For instance, in Zhoushan, during recent 3 years, cases running in summary procedure are at the rate of more than 40%, which has reduced, to some extent, the pressure of court officials owing to a lack of legal resources. However, some defects exist in the design for summary procedure in China such as the defendant having little option of the summary procedure, notions of a defendant's right to be assisted or noticed by his/her attorney not being embodied in the legislation and related construction of law, and some regulations not being so easily operated.For all mentioned above, I'm going to put forward some suggestions below for perfecting the legislation programme for summary procedure of criminal litigation in our country:Define the range more clearly in which summary procedure applies;Make those directly involved, especially defendants themselves, have complete option of the summary procedure;Guarantee that those directly involved, especially defendants themselves, can be noticed and assisted during the proceedings of litigation;Perfect cosus siandi system for prosecutors in summary procedure.Moreover, according to the trend of development of summary procedure all over the world, I cherish the belief that as means to improve the efficiency of litigation and deploy legal resources, summary procedure will apply more widely. China will learn from other countries, and at the same time make her mode based on her own plural types and various characteristics of legal resources, aiming more efficient and protective towards human rights. The future mode of China's summary procedure of criminal litigation may be called 'the plea bargaining with Chinese character', establishing court proceedings in writing and simplified due procedure on the base of the procedure existed now, aiming at not only the improvement of efficiency but also the safeguard against injustice.