| The Criminal Procedure Law of 2018 officially established The System of Giving a Lenient Punishment for Pleading Guilty and Accepting Punishment,and adjusted the content of the court's sentencing judgments,and integrated the provisions of Article 201.Specifically,the Criminal Procedure Law of 2018 abolished Article 21 of "the Measures for the Pilot Program of The System of Giving a Lenient Punishment for Pleading Guilty and Accepting Punishment in Criminal Cases in Certain Areas"(hereinafter referred to as the "Pilot Measures"),which states that "the defendant shall adjust his sentencing recommendations" If the person and the defender still disagree,the people's court shall make a judgment according to the law,and in Article 201,paragraph 2 of the Criminal Procedure Law,"if it is still apparently inappropriate after adjusting the sentencing proposal,the people's court shall make a judgment in accordance with the law." Not only that,the "Guiding Opinions on the Application of The System of Giving a Lenient Punishment for Pleading Guilty and Accepting Punishment"(hereinafter referred to as the "Guiding Opinions")in 2019 supplemented and refined the content of sentencing judgments through Articles 40 and 41.The System of Giving a Lenient Punishment for Pleading Guilty and Accepting Punishment has been improving.The provisions of Article 201 of the Criminal Procedure Law reflect respect for the agreement of the prosecution and defense,and are conducive to protecting the expected interests of criminal suspects and defendants.It is also conducive to expanding the scope of application of The System of Giving a Lenient Punishment for Pleading Guilty and Accepting Punishment.In order for the court to adopt the sentencing recommendation instead of conducting a legal judgment,the applicable conditions stipulated in Article 201 of the Criminal Procedure Law must be actively met.Even after the refinement and improvement of the Guiding Opinions,the content of Article 201 of the Criminal Procedure Law on sentencing judgments by the court still has deficiencies and defects.For example,there are problems such as unclear terminology,unclear standards,and inconsistent sentencing judgment standards.There is a danger that sentencing judgments will be reduced to sentencing confirmation and judicial credibility will be impaired.Furthermore,the regulations themselves will limit the discretion of sentencing judges and weaken the final decision of sentencing judges.Sexual problems.Regarding the content of sentencing judgments stipulated in Article 201 of the Criminal Procedure Law,it is necessary to recognize both its value and its disadvantages.Only in this way can we make effective improvements and suggestions based on dialectical analysis.This article is intended to be divided into five parts for discussion:the first is the presentation of the problem,the background of the research,the origin of the"Generally Adoptable" Article 201 of the Criminal Procedure Law and its normative content,and the issues to be studied.The second part is the understanding and analysis of the "Generally Adoptable" clause of Article 201 of the Criminal Procedure Law.This article will analyze this clause from three levels,including:"Generally Adoptable Provisions","Exceptional Situation Provisions","Sentencing change regulations" and establishment of the "presumptive acceptance" sentencing recommendation adoption model.The third part is the value of the "Generally Adoptable" clause,which is summarized in the following four aspects,that is,it is conducive to respect for the agreement of the prosecution and defense,to protect the expected interests of the criminal suspect and the defendant,and to confess punishment for confession The application of the wide system provides a wider space and is conducive to prompting the procuratorate to improve the quality of sentencing suggestions.The fourth part is the disadvantages of the "Generally Adoptable" clause.This article analyzes from six aspects:the language is unclear and the standard is not clear;the sentencing judgment standards are inconsistent;the court's sentencing judgment space is limited;the finality of the court's sentencing judgment is weakened;There is a risk that sentencing judgments will be reduced to sentencing confirmation;there is a danger that judicial credibility will be damaged.The fifth part is the suggestions for perfecting the "Generally Adoptable Provisions" and its supporting provisions,including establishing a "review acceptance model" for sentencing judgments;clarifying the legislative formulation and enhancing the court's review obligations;adding three aspects of the proactive adjustment mechanism of the procuratorial organs,It is expected to provide assistance for the improvement of sentencing and adjudication activities under the leniency system. |
PDF Full Text Request