Study Of Damages In The Criminal Reconciliation Procedure

The criminal reconciliation procedure is developed by the judicial practice and finally approved by the legislative process.It's a kind of bottom-up legislative development.Before it was confirmed as a special procedure of criminal procedure law,the local polices and the judiciaries had different understanding of the parties,object,content,method and procedure of the criminal reconciliation,and there was a lack of unified standards in judicial practice.For a response to these issues,the Amendment to Criminal Procedure Law in 2012 and the relevant explanations and rules made a number of specific provisions for some issues.However,there are not enough specific and clear provisions on the issue of damages,and that made the courts make different judgments and arguments in the cases that the parties claimed the settlement agreement cancellation or variation or claimed civil suit collateral to criminal proceeding after the settlement agreement had been reached and performed,due to the issue of damages.Sometimes the judges' opposite decisions on the same claim for the same reason was influenced by whether the accuser was a victim.1 In order to solve this issue,it is necessary to make clear the function,nature and standard of “damages” in the criminal reconciliation procedure.“Study of damages in the criminal reconciliation procedure” is the title of the paper,and i draw a question that is the nature of “damages” a compensation or additional money besides compensation with a true case and answer it by using the methods of historical induction and literature research to discusses the function,nature and standard of “damages” in the criminal reconciliation procedure.I think the criminal reconciliation procedure involves not only procedural issues but also substantive issues,and different understandings of them may cause different explanations of damage issues.Based on the sentencing principle,the inflicter of the criminal reconciliation procedure who compensated the victim was dealt with leniency.Due to lacking of criminal substantive right of disposition,as well as procedure right of disposition,the victim doesn't have the litigious rights that can be used to affect proceeding and measurement of penalty in the criminal reconciliation procedure.The victim doesn't have the right to decide to start the criminal reconciliation procedure alone.The nature of “damages” is “restoration”,and it is inadequate to explain it as a circumstance of sentencing to indicate that the inflicter has lighter dangerous nature and explain it from the view of punishment.The settlement agreement that reached legally and freely should be respected,if the victim and inflicter expressly agreed that the “damages” is additional money besides statutory compensation,it should be recognised as additional money,on the contrary,should be recognised as statutory compensation.The victim can no longer claim collateral civil compensation in the criminal case for the coincident part between statutory compensation and agreed compensation.