An Empirical Analysis Of Sentencing Recommendations In The Leniency System Of Pleading Guilty And Admitting Punishment

The new revision of the Criminal Procedure Law in 2018 established a leniency system for confessing guilt and punishing at the legislative level.The introduction of this system has aroused the attention of legal scholars and experts.The leniency system of plea guilty and punished stipulates the legal basis for sentencing recommendations and new case handling requirements.The establishment of the leniency system for confessing guilt and punishing is of great significance to judicial personnel in the judgment of cases.This system saves litigation costs for all parties,saves judicial resources,and improves litigation efficiency.The sentencing recommendations in the leni ency system for confessing guilt and punishment are essentially to give the suspect and defendant a chance to reform and rehabilitate.After the criminal suspect or defendant pleads guilty and punished,comprehensively consider whether the defendant has sh own repentance and The victim made active compensation,obtained the understanding of the victim and his family,and other factors.After the prosecution and defense negotiated and reached a "consensus",they made suggestions to the court on conviction and sentencing.This system allows criminal suspects and defendants to receive a "preferential sentencing",which greatly promotes judicial justice and maintains social stability.For judicial case-handling personnel,this system can effectively promote better negotiation between the prosecution and the defense and ease the conflicts between the parties.This article is based on the theoretical basis of the lenient system of confessing guilt and punishing,and mainly introduces the concept of sentencing recomm endations,the conditions of sentencing recommendations,and the value of sentencing recommendations.The data of three basic-level courts in S province and J city in my country in 2019 and 2020 are selected for analysis.From the perspective,combined with the 202 cases in 2019 and 116 cases in 2020 in which the three basic-level courts in S Province and J City applied the leniency system,the pilot will be formalized in terms of the proposal of sentencing,the application of additional penalties,and the application of probation.After the present stage,the application of the leniency system has been empirically analyzed.The sentencing recommendations in this system mainly have the following problems in judicial practice: First,the effectiveness of the sentencing recommendations is not clear.For example,in the “Yu Jinping Traffic Accident Case” in Beijing,it is impossible to clearly judge and measure the effectiveness of the sentencing recommendations;Precision penalties are less applicable,mainly b ecause some prosecutors apply a range of penalties in order to increase the acceptance rate of sentencing recommendations.In addition,some public prosecutors have insufficient experience in precise penalties,such as the "Sun Moumou Traffic Accident Case " in2020,the procuratorial agency There is a big gap between the proposed sentencing recommendations and the actual court verdicts,which will lead to more severe sentencing.Third,the sentencing recommendation procedures are not standardized,mainly because the sentencing recommendation standards are not refined and the participation of duty lawyers is formalized.In response to the three problems discovered,the article puts forward three corresponding suggestions for improvement:First,the effectiveness of sentencing recommendations should be clarified,and Article 201 of the Criminal Procedure Law should be clearly sorted out;second,the applicable model of sentencing should be comprehensively considered,which can be cleared.The standard for the adoption rate of sentencing recommendations and the improvement of the sentencing ability of public prosecutors have been improved;the third is the standardization of sentencing recommendations procedures,mainly from two aspects of standardizing sentencing recommendations and strengthening the participation of on-duty lawyers to make recommendations on the improvement of sentencing recommendations.