Deviation And Correction Of The System Of Guilty Pleading,Punishment Pleading And Being Lenient

As an important part of the reform of the judicial system,the system of leniency of punishment for admitting crimes has been tried out for more than a year.For example: Beijing,Tianjin,Shanghai,Chongqing,Shenyang,Dalian,Nanjing,Hangzhou,Fuzhou,Xiamen,Jinan,Qingdao,Zhengzhou,Wuhan,Changsha,Guangzhou,Shenzhen and Xi 'an.The system of leniency of punishment for admitting crimes is based on the following considerations.First,the number of criminal cases in China is increasing year by year.Second,under the system reform to determine the number of judges,the number of judges and prosecutors handling cases dropped sharply.Moreover,the system of leniency of punishment for admitting crimes is a typical manifestation of lax and strict criminal policies.Finally,the concept of "the system of leniency of punishment for admitting crimes" has been reflected in China's criminal law and procedural law.The reformation expected results of the system of leniency of punishment for crimes are mainly divided into two parts.One part is to protect the rights of suspects and defendants,that is,to grant preferential sentencing,preferential compulsory measures and preferential procedures.The other part is to improve the judicial efficiency,hoping to achieve the goal of "substantially reducing the litigation time,simplifying the litigation link,realizing the separation of procedures,and optimizing the allocation of judicial resources".This paper uses the research method of big data analysis to evaluate the trial work effectiveness of the system of leniency of punishment for admitting crimes in criminal cases.In other words,it is combined with the expected results of this system to build a set of indicators with practical evaluation.At the same time,through various indicators data display,found in the defendant's rights protection and litigation efficiency advantages.This will also explore the gap between the practical results and the expected results.The authors found that the system of leniency of punishment for admitting crimes reformation had a significant positive effect.This is mainly reflected in: the overall level of defendants' rights protection is good,the overall level of judicial efficiency is good,and the judicial efficiency is significantly improved.However,theactual operation of the system does deviate from the expected results of the reform.There are the following points.First,the criminal detention rate needs to be further reduced.Second,the quality of defendants' defense needs to be improved.Thirdly,there is still room for improvement in the rate of misdemeanor offenses below one year.Fourth,it's limited to misdemeanor cases.Fifth,there is a formal risk of trial.There is a gap between the practical result of this system and the expected result,and there is a deeper reason behind it.The rate of criminal detention in such cases has not decreased,which is related to the improper use of criminal detention in judicial practice,as well as the principle of genetic method.There are two reasons for the overall poor quality of defense in such cases.The first is that the respondent himself does not attach enough importance to the case.Second,the current legal aid duty lawyer system cannot provide effective defense.The extent of such a modest reduction has not been publicly agreed.Therefore,the penalty is not obvious.In fact,as an extension of the rapid criminal justice reform,the institutional reform naturally limits this system to cases with relatively light crimes.The focus is on shortening the time of trial and violating the principle of direct speech in criminal trial,which forms the formalization of trial.Based on the analysis of the expected causes of the deviation of the system operation,this paper puts forward countermeasures one by one.First,the compulsory measures to promote the cases of leniency of punishment for admitting crimes are no longer in custody.Second,it encourages the full coverage of lawyers' defense in the cases of leniency of punishment for admitting crimes.The third is to ensure that cases sentenced according to the circumstances are preferential and substantive.Fourth,expand the scope of the system of leniency of punishment for admitting crimes.Fifth,realize the substantive nature of the trial of the cases of leniency of punishment for admitting crimes.