Interpretation And Construction Of Substantive Law On The System Of Leniency On Admission Of Guilty And Acceptance Of Punishment

The system of leniency on admission of guilty and acceptance of punishment is a global reform involving criminal procedural and substantive law.However,there are still two core shortcomings to be improved around the substantive dimension of the system.The first is the imbalance in theoretical research.The second is the lag in the establishment of norms.Many current difficulties debated at the substantive dimension also stem from this.Responding to these two issues is particularly critical to make up for the shortcomings of this system,to fully display the full picture of the system and to play the best effect.For this reason,this article focuses on the theoretical interpretation and normative assumptions of the substantive dimension of the system,finding problems from the existing literature,finding clues in the criminal law system,and integrating previous theories in order to reasonably integrate this new institution into the China's criminal law system.Firstly,starting from the problem orientation,the new system has a dilemma of substance deduction.By combing and following up the literature,it can be seen that the academic community have paid much less attention to the substantive study of this newly established system than to the procedural dimension,and the bias of this theory has directly caused the lag in the construction of criminal law And paying too much attention to its procedural value is also contrary to the original intention of the system.Judging from the current reform practice,the absorption,integration and creation of this system by China's criminal law standards are still in the initial stage,and the relevant connotations need to be identified.The justification basis lacks further consideration combining with the innovation of the system.The relationship and application need to be sorted out urgently.The substantive rights supply needs to be clarified and refined,and the supporting measures need to be improvedSecondly,from the perspective of the system,it is necessary to properly handle the relationship between the system and China's existing confession incentive system.By reviewing and reflecting on the confession incentive system,we can find that the new system inherits both the existing confession incentive system and makes up for the shortcomings of the previous system,and further responds to the new requirements of the risk criminal law development on the incentive system.Examining this new system under the background of the expansion of the confession incentive system is of great benefit in understanding its connotation.In the comparison of the system,clarify the substantive meaning and logical relationship between "confession of guilt" and "recognition of facts" in the connotation of "admission of guilty",grasp the introduction of the elements of "acceptance of punishment","negotiation",and the enrichment of the connotation of "leniency".Thirdly,it is precisely because of the many innovative factors mentioned above that many new questions have been brought to the legitimacy of the system.In the past,the discussion of its legitimacy was mainly based on the one-way interpretation of the substantial side or the procedural side,which is difficult to link the whole picture of the system.After many new factors such as negotiation are introduced into the incentive framework,the basis for this innovative feature is explored,and why should such negotiation be rewarded?Why should we combine procedural and substantive leniency measures?Why impose restrictions on such leniency?On the basis of discussions in the academic community,a review of the redistribution of punishment rights and benefits under the guidance of temper justice with mercy can provide a more comprehensive answer to the above-mentioned questions of legitimacy.Finally,the ultimate guidance of interpretation should be implemented in the rational structure of the system.Firstly,it is necessary to clarify the status of its independent sentencing circumstances.It is not a simple repetition and integration of the existing incentive system.At the same time,it is necessary to grasp the applicable prerequisites for both admission of guilty and acceptance of punishment.Secondly,in the process of its integration into the Criminal Code,on the one hand,it is necessary to pay attention to its commanding significance,add this principle to the general sentencing basis,and on the other hand,it must be an independent plot in the Criminal Code.Thirdly,with the deepening of the standardization of sentencing reforms,we must explore a stepped,typed,and dynamic pattern of the system,grasp the substantive law path for the accuracy of sentencing recommendations,and improve the supporting measures such as community corrections to ensure the scientific and enforceable way of probation.