Sentencing Defense Empirical Research

With the development of China’s judicial system, from June 2008, the Supreme Court designated 12 grassroots people’s courts and intermediate people’s court in the eastern, western and central regions of sentencing reform pilot work; and in the accumulation of a certain based on the experience, in June 2009, the Supreme People’s 120 designated national court’s sentencing reform pilot work; and from October 2010 in the country, the lower courts to conduct a comprehensive trial sentencing reform, nearly four nationwide within the scope of the pilot reform, in general, the effect is good. National standardization sentencing and sentencing reform pilot program has achieved significant results. Therefore, December 23,2013, the Supreme Court issued a "Supreme People’s Court on the implementation of standardized sentencing notice"(hereinafter referred to as "Working Notice") and to all levels of the district court issued a "Common criminal sentencing guidance"(hereinafter referred to as "Sentencing Guidance." The "Working Notice" provisions, from January 1, 2014, the Supreme Court decided in the country formal sentencing courts at all levels to implement standardization work, requiring each local Higher People’s Court designated place in accordance with the appropriate implementation details "Sentencing Guidance" requirement, the full implementation of the formal sentencing standardization work. Sentencing reform plan was officially launched nationwide, which further development of criminal sentencing defense opened the door again.However, we should note that the current sentencing defend our country is not perfect: First, the pilot implementation of the national courts more independent sentencing procedures reflect the problems, although the relevant legal documents also continue to improve and perfect the relative independent of the sentencing process, but our conviction and sentencing process integration model has not yet realized the true sense of separation, sentencing defense system in the context of this difficult to achieve real effective progress. The second is the result of unjust sentencing, not balanced, a very important factor is irrational defense of sentencing practice there is a big flaw in the operation, faced with certain obstacles in the sentencing hearing, defense counsel applied to the more difficult to judge big impact, the effect of sentencing in criminal defense made limited practical activities, and thus can`t protect the legitimate rights of criminal suspects effectively and defendants. Especially criminal suspects and defendants the right to fight for their own interests is difficult to judge sentencing maximize effective protection, thus making the "Codefendant Different Sentence" "Sentencing not balanced exceedingly " phenomenon is more common. Therefore, the author tries to defend the status quo of China’s current sentencing for further study on the basis of empirical study, in order to defend our country and sentencing in criminal defense practice activities provide some suggestions for further effective implementation of the theory and practice.The main text of this article is divided into four parts. The first part is an overview of the theory. Mainly on the basic theory of the defense’s sentencing brief overview, first introduced in this part of Guangdong Bai Yun District Court sentencing reform, one of the pilot court hearing a criminal case of intentional injury as a starting point, through case studies and describes the basic defense-related sentencing Concept, properties and characteristics. In defense of the concept of sentencing, the nature, value and sentencing defense relations with other types of criminal defense and summarized on the basis of theoretical analysis of the groundwork for the rest of this article empirical research.The second part is the empirical study. This part is the author of the status quo to run our country’s defense sentencing empirical study, respectively, lower courts, grass-roots procurator ate, and criminal defense lawyer who as a study object, through questionnaires, individual interviews, and data access dossier citing other forms of empirical study. After collecting a large number of valid research data, the author With IBM SPSS19.0 Statistics tool for statistical analysis of survey data, through rigorous analysis and repeated demonstration, ensure an authenticity, accuracy and originality of each data.The third part is the cause analysis. On the basis of the second part of the empirical research on the analysis of sentencing factors affect the effective operation of our defense. First, the factors that affect the effective operation of our defense sentencing defense did not attract enough attention; secondly, conviction and sentencing of one trial mode constraints, the lack of independence of the sentencing process is the main reason for the effective operation of our defense sentencing influence; secondly, the defense sentencing prove the existence of process-related activities in certain issues, such as the reason for the sentencing of defense counsel opinions reasoning inadequate sentencing standard of proof, proof of liability and other factors prove fuzzy objects are constraints to carry out an effective defense sentencing; again, the defense lawyer Participation v is low, the defendant, and the lack of legal knowledge is imperfect legal aid system; and finally, as the sentencing judge to defend the essence of the protection of the sentencing judge reasoning is not standardized, the sentencing judge reasoning is too simple, and so are the impact statement is not complete and effective defense sentencing The key factor in operation.Part IV presents countermeasures. This part, by reason of the above analysis, and further promote China’s proposed sentencing defense countermeasures healthy development. First, we must pay attention to the defense sentencing, update judicial philosophy. The second is to the scientific performance appraisal, improve judicial officers handling the initiative. The third is to gradually achieve the separation of the conviction and sentencing procedures, forming a more perfect independent sentencing procedures for sentencing defend effectively carried providers rely on. The fourth is to standardize sentencing prove clearly sentencing standard of proof, the burden of proof and proof object, strengthening the right to defense counsel’s investigation. The fifth is to standardize sentencing magistrate’s reasoning, the defense has made substantive safeguards to ensure that sentencing in order to promote our criminal defense system to better improve.