Research On The Appeal Right Of The Accused Treated Leniently For Admission Of Guilt And Acceptance Of Punishiment

The reform of the leniency system has been a hot topic in recent years.In order to achieve a good operating effect of the system,the state has successively issued many legal documents to respond to the difficulties encountered in judicial practice,and constantly improve the application details of the system of plea guilty and punishing leniency.Therefore,the reform has achieved remarkable results,effectively alleviating the pressure of "more cases and fewer people" in our judicial organs.However,there are endless cases of the defendant’s blank appeal,which has produced many negative effects.In order to solve the above-mentioned problems,this article studies the right of appeal of the defendant in pleading guilty and punishing cases,with a view to providing solutions.This article first analyzes two representative cases of confession and punishment,and finds that the defendant’s blank appeal is suspected of abusing the principle of no additional penalty for appeals,which violates the system purpose of improving the efficiency of litigation,and means that overturning the confession and punishment results in the loss of a leniency basis.Regarding this,in judicial practice,the procuratorate’s protests against the second-instance increase in punishment or the second-instance court ’ s rapid handling methods are often used to deal with it.However,the above two methods of response have no legal basis and may infringe the legitimate rights and interests of the defendant.The legitimacy is questionable.In my opinion,the right to appeal should start with the resolution of the blank appeal problem.Specifically,it should be studied whether and how to restrict the right of appeal.Because the leniency system for guilty pleas and punishment is a reference,a comparative analysis of the establishment of appeal rights in the United States,Germany,and Chinese Taiwan’s guilty plea negotiation system and the factors considered in the establishment of the system revealed that the establishment of appeal rights should not adopt a “one size fits all” model.The degree of restriction on the right of appeal is related to the legitimacy of the first instance judgment and the severity of the crime.There are different opinions in the theoretical circles as to whether the right of appeal can be restricted and to what extent it should be restricted.They mainly include deprivation of the right of appeal,restriction of the right of appeal,and full retention of the right of appeal.Through a summary and analysis of these three viewpoints,I think that the deprivation of the right of appeal and the overall There are disadvantages in retaining the right of appeal,and the proper restriction of the right of appeal is justified and conforms to the current context of our country.Regarding specific restrictions,I believe that a review system for the grounds of appeal should be introduced in the scope of plea and punished cases of misdemeanor.The court of second instance will review the grounds of appeal.Defendants who appeal only on the basis of excessive sentencing and other non-statutory grounds are not allowed.In the second instance procedure,of course,the reason should be reviewed based on the evidence,but the proof standard can prove that there is a legitimate reason.At the same time,the system of on-duty lawyers should be improved and the judicial organs’ obligation of notification should be increased.It is necessary to be cautious to change our country’s current unreasonable appeal system,but due to the continuous adjustment of the criminal procedure structure in our country,the appeal system shows a certain degree of lag.Taking guilty plea cases as an entry point to appropriately restrict the right of appeal is also a preliminary exploration of the reform of the appeal system.