Problems And Countermeasures In The Implementation Of Criminal Reconciliation

This paper attempts to form data and case through before and after the implementation of the new Criminal Procedure Law regarding the implementation of the judicial practice of criminal reconciliation summarizes the problem and then propose appropriate countermeasures. By analyzing the data to know, before the implementation of the new Criminal Procedure Law, the number of criminal reconciliation in the investigation stage is much higher than the number of prosecutions and trial stages, and because there is no clear legal provision limits the scope of application of criminal reconciliation and not limited to "Criminal Law" is the fourth and fifth chapters under the criminal points, for other minor criminal cases also may be utilized depending on the situation. And after the implementation of the new Criminal Procedure Law, the number of prosecutions and trial stages of the rapid increase in the number of increasingly flat and the investigation stage, and because clearly states that "the Criminal Procedure Code", the scope of application of criminal reconciliation relatively narrow. But the same is, the success rate of criminal reconciliation always inversely proportional to the offender’s subjective malignant, the number of criminal court chaired reconciliation is always lower than the number of stages of the investigation and prosecution stage. The implementation of the main problems that exist there:only the provisions of the criminal settlement as a "procedural law" and "Code of Criminal Procedure", it was not specified in the substantive law, resulting in a lack of substantive law on the basis of the criminal settlement. "Code of Criminal Procedure," the scope of application of criminal reconciliation made a limited, resulting in the narrow scope of the criminal settlement. More seriously, the criminal settlement and there is no uniform standard of compensation, which conciliation is also more simple. Contribute to reconciliation after the legal consequences of the criminal is also not clear. The "first reconciliation, after go back" has become a major criminal reconciliation crux.The author first analyzes from the legislative measures, including:First, the provisions of the criminal reconciliation system in the Criminal Code, as the statutory sentencing; the second is a combination of judicial practice, to expand the scope of criminal reconciliation; Third otherwise provided outside the criminal settlement system ’Leniency compensation "system; Fourth refinement" category lenient punishment "; five is the creation of national or public security as a victim when reconciliation mechanisms.Measures judicial purposes, I think we should first make reconciliation diversified manner, such as increased community services to help victims of labor in the form of installments, the implementation of admonishing perpetrators are criminal reconciliation mechanisms can be applied better reconciliation mode; secondly is to strengthen the oversight functions of the prosecution, in order to prevent miscarriages of justice in criminal reconciliation phenomenon; again is reasonable compensation standards applicable to criminal reconciliation in the wild speculations prevent such phenomena; the fourth is the effective implementation of the victims of the national justice system to help victims get better relief, resulting in another aspect provides help for the success of the criminal settlement; fifth diversion program is to increase the intensity, clear criminal settlement in the investigation stage, the prosecution stage and trial phase The relevant legal procedures and applicable conditions; finally, with full respect for the right to self-reconciliation of the parties. I view of the above may also be premature, but are from the author practice are thinking, for discussion.