Study On Precision Of Sentence Recommendation In Admission Of Guilty And Acceptance Of Punishment Cases

This thesis includes three parts except for introduction and conclusion.The first part is practical investigation.The author summarized the practices in the target area about the precision of sentencing proposal,which have achieved significant results.In Chongqing,these fruits include: First,drafting internal norms for sentencing proposals in similar cases;second,exploring the procedures for putting forward sentencing proposals,which includes three levels of procedures: the prosecutors themselves,the joint prosecutor’s meeting for discussion,and prosecutor committee;exploring the procedures for adjusting sentencing proposal.When there is a dispute,the prosecutor communicates with the judge in advance,or the judge informs the prosecutor in writing or verbally after receiving the records.Fourth,establishing a similar case handling team to promote the specialization.While,in Hubei and Jiangxi,trainnings of sentencing were hold in the province and each district procuratorate.In Guangdong,artificial intelligent assistance systems and big data are used to improve the precision of sentencing proposals.In addition,prosecutor in other regions have chosen to make precision sentencing proposal forms,signed sentencing proposal documents with courts,and made social investigations.According to author’s data,various regions have made achievements in precision of sentencing proposal.In each surveyed area,the proportion of "specific" sentencing proposal was higher than the national,and the rate of adoption was roughly the same as the overall rate.The second part proposes four dilemmas.The first is recognition.There are three main disputes between the theoretical and practical circles: one is the rationality of the "specific" sentencing proposal;the second is the understanding of Article 201 of the Criminal Procedure Law of 2018;the third is some victims’ suggestions on the "specific" sentencing proposal.The author summarizes the focus of the controversy as whether the "specific" sentence proposal conflicts with the court’s sentencing discretion and whether it is binding on the outcome of the judgment.The second is the normative level.The criminal law has not yet responded to the nature and application of admission of guilty and acceptance of punishment;the proposal for "specific" sentence proposal lacks the basis of substantive law;At the same time,the current sentencing guidance is too general,and the scope of sentencing remains to be refined.There are obstacles to the advancement ofsentencing proposals.The third is the procedural level.Judging from the proposed procedures,some prosecutors have formed relatively complete internal procedures,but when major differences arise among the prosecutors,external communication mechanisms are still lacking.Judging from the adjustment procedures,the current practice has problems such as times,methods,no explain of the adjustment by the court,and lack of new procedures after adjustment;meanwhile,there are different recognize of procedure of adjustment of sentencing proposal between prosecutors and judges.The fourth is the ability.The accuracy of sentencing proposals has been accelerated,but local prosecutors have varying capabilities and limited experience in handling cases.It is difficult to carry out "specific" sentencing proposal across the country.Meanwhile,artificial intelligent systems can only provide statistics on big data,it is impossible to analyze the specific problems of individual cases,and it is of limited help to further advance the precision of sentencing.The third part is the selection and realization of precision of sentencing proposal.The first is the selection.Firstly,by referring to the "efficiency theory" and "trial approximation theory",the author argues that the precision of sentencing suggestions is an determined choice for implementing the admission of guilty and acceptance of punishment.Secondly,the author responded to the theoretical controversy in the theoretical world: the "specific" sentencing proposal is still proposal,no change happens in the nature of its characteristic because of its "specific",it does not conflict with the court’s sentencing discretion,and does not affect the judgment result.Meanwhile,it is based on the "consensus" based on confession from the accused.The court should respect the "consensus",carefully treat "specific" sentencing proposal,strictly abide by the procedures of adjustment.Then,the application of the "specific" sentencing proposal is an important way to achieve precision of sentencing proposal.Finally,the author puts forward the selection of "specific" sentencing proposal: In the expedited procedure,the prosecutor should always put forward "specific" sentencing proposal;in felony cases,"specific" sentencing proposal should be proposed less and carefully;in other cases,the selection of "specific" sentencing proposal should be based on prosecutor’s ability and experience.The second is the realization.Firstly,refine the specification.Criminal law should respond to the nature and leniency of admission of guilty and acceptance of punishment,in order to guide prosecutors to propose "specific" sentencing proposal;meanwhile,sum up local experience,establish a sentencing database,and form a sentencing guide based on jurisprudence.Secondly,establish the procedure of propose.Improve the internalprocedures for the "specific" sentencing proposal;establish external communication procedures for major difficult cases;set up the step of explanation and reasoning to the victims,and better settle disputes.Thirdly,build the procedure of adjustment,including which is before the court and in the court,and judge should explain the reason for adjustment.Finally,set up skills-training program,establish a normal communication mechanism,improve prosecutors’ ability.