The Study Of The Criminal Pretrial Conference System’s Implementation Problem

The paper can be divided into3parts besides the introduction and conclusion, about30thousand words.The first section is that the empirical investigation of pretrial conference system. To takethe different levels of four provinces, Municipalities directly under the central government,judicial practice courts in different regions for the study samples, and by means of theempirical data analysis, collection of normative documents, case studies, surveys, etc., thestatus of implementation of the pretrial conference system has been inspection. Firstly, theempirical present situation of the pretrial conference system. While the reported cases ofpretrial conference system emerging like mushrooms after rain, the overall rate of theapplication of this system is also seems very low. With no special limitations on the scope, itis applied in part charges of the Criminal Law’s the third, fourth, fifth, sixth chapters and eightchapters. The judges who participated in the pretrial conferences have a tendentiousevaluation of satisfactory about it. The pretrial conference’s function of improving efficiency,sorting out evidences, clearing the point of contention, disputing settlement procedures isbasically achieved. Secondly, the operational program of pretrial conference. In practice, inaddition to the similarity of start-up mode and ending methods, there is diverse practice in theother aspects of pretrial conference, such as the host, participants, held in respect of time,place, content of the conference and so on.The second part is the issues and causes of the pretrial conference system’simplementation. First of all, the basic issues about the application of the pretrial conference.Firstly, the rate of the application of pretrial conference system is lower. Secondly, the meansof starting the pretrial conference is single and lacking of supervision. Thirdly, there is adiversity of the operational program of the pretrial conference. Fourthly, the effect of theapplication of the pretrial conference relies on the quality of the judges. Fifthly, protection ofthe rights of the accused has to be strengthened. The second point is the causes of theproblems. In the aspect of subjective, judges hold a slow and unilateral process ofunderstanding the pretrial conference system; informal consultative mechanism hindered theimplementation of the pretrial conference system; all the parties involved in the lack of theattention on the rights of defendants that deserve. In the aspect of system, laws andregulations related to pretrial conference system is imperfect, which increases the difficulty ofthis system’s implementation. Different approaches taken may give rise to various problems. In the aspect of bridge of systems, the problems of poor bridge between pretrial conferencesystem and the principle of open trial, the lawsuit resources allocation, the legal aid systemlead to a lack of supporting measures to ensure the regime.The third part is the improvement of pretrial conference system. In the first place,construct a perfect pretrial conference system. The pretrial conference applies to all casesexcept the summary procedure, and the applicable conditions is limited by stipulates in the"Code of Criminal Procedure interpretation" without excessive refinement. Not only thejudge’s authority, but also includes the applications of the prosecution and defense can startthe pretrial conference. The pretrial conference shall be hosted by the trial judge, but thecomplicated cases shall be hosted by the presiding judge and collegial panel members inattendance. Increasing the application of the RADVISION MCU interactive video conferenceplatform in pretrial conference, to break the shackles of spatial distance, reduce security risksand litigation costs as well. In addition to the8kinds of situations of criminal procedure lawand judicial interpretation provisions, should increase the discovery as the first step of thepretrial conference. According to various matters the pretrial conference resolve, makedifferent treatment. Rulings settled about procedural disputes should be explained in the trialor referee instrument, unless that new facts or evidences are brought out, which shall notmake an application or objection, in accordance with the principle of non bis in idem. Legalevidence exclusion issues should be solved on trial on the basis of understanding of the twosides. Focus of both parties’ disputes on the facts and evidence can be recorded in the form oftranscripts in the pretrial conferences, but when evidences without disputes, the trial cansimplify proof, cross examination procedure. For the part of mediation of supplementary civilaction in criminal proceedings, if mediation agreement is reached, the mediation agreementshould be timely made. However, if no agreement is reached, the focuses between the twosides can be written in record, which be brought as the basis for mediation in the trial. In thesecond place, judges should play an active role in the training system to improve the skilllevels of the judicial and the awareness of human rights protection. Again, strengthening theobligation of inform to protect the defendant’s right to know. Finally, establish monitoringmechanisms in the pretrial conference, which appropriately to make the consensus reached atthe meeting public in the trial, both to protect the public’s right to know and do not affect thefairness of the trial.