| On November 16,2016,the lenient punishment system for admitting guilt began to be piloted in some parts of China.After nearly two years of judicial practice,it was formally written into The Criminal Procedure Law of China on October 26,2018,and the sentencing proposal was included in it.The law endowed the sentencing proposal with special significance and function.The system of leniency of confession and punishment has introduced the sentencing consultation mechanism.The sentencing proposal is no longer just a unilateral sentencing opinion proposed by the procuratorial organ,but a lawsuit agreement between the prosecution and defense parties after the sentencing consultation,which is the main basis of the judge’s sentencing.Therefore,the quality of sentencing recommendations has a direct impact on the realization of the value goal of leniency system.But in judicial practice,because of the standardization of the sentencing suggestion is not unified and the binding of sentencing suggestion and sentencing accused person right in the process of negotiation and inadequate protection,resulting in sentencing suggestion is not adopted by the court and eventually quit the phenomenon to forfeit their programs abound,proceedings delay is,judicial resources waste.Based on the sentencing recommendations of321 plea and punishment cases in P City court,this paper analyzes the characteristics of sentencing recommendations in the case trial,studies the problems existing in sentencing recommendations in plea and punishment cases,and proposes a path to improve the sentencing recommendations of plea and punishment from the legislative and judicial levels.This paper is divided into three parts:The first chapter mainly analyzes the theoretical basis and legislative norms of the sentencing suggestion,emphasizes the constraint power of the sentencing suggestion to the four parties in the case of confession and punishment,and explores the value and function of the penalty suggestion and its constraint power.Chapter ii around 321 P municipal court pleaded guilty to forfeit their case sentencing suggestion for sample of empirical research,analysis of P municipal court pleaded guilty to forfeit their sentencing recommendations to present the characteristics of the case,found greater confessed forfeit their system in our country in practice in the operation of the existing problems,mainly to the standardization of sentencing suggestion is not unified,sentencing recommendations of binding and sentencing accused person inadequate protection of the rights in the process of consultation,etc.;The third chapter mainly aims at the problems raised in the second chapter,from the legislative level and the judicial level of the sentencing recommendations in the case of admission of guilt to improve the path.The path to improve the legislation mainly includes clarifying the circumstances and standards of sentencing and strengthening the effectiveness of sentencing Suggestions.The ways of judicial improvement mainly include guaranteeing the litigious rights of the accused,strengthening the duty lawyer’s participation in the sentencing consultation and guaranteeing the victim’s right to participate in the sentencing.The innovation points of this paper are as follows: 1.Starting from the theoretical basis and legislative norms of sentencing Suggestions,this paper highlights the binding force of sentencing Suggestions in cases of confession and punishment,and analyzes the value function of sentencing Suggestions and their binding force from the aspects of judicial justice and litigation efficiency;2.2.This paper adopts literature research method,empirical analysis method,comparative analysis method,etc.,which is based on empirical evidence and problem-oriented,and leads to more vivid and vivid questions.3.Combining theory with practice,this paper explores the normative path of sentencing Suggestions from the legislative and judicial levels.In the process of exploration,it draws lessons from the experience of pilot areas and foreign experience,etc.Limitations of this paper: 1.Due to the limitations of objective conditions,the author is unable to collect the situation of plea and punishment cases outside the court of P City.The empirical analysis sample of this paper is limited to 321 plea and punishment cases heard in the court of P City,and the empirical part cannot comprehensively reflect all the problems with limitations.2.Due to the limited theoretical foundation and lack of knowledge on relevant issues,the research depth of the paper is not enough. |
