The Conflict Between Prosecution And Trial And Its Countermeasures Under The Background Of Accurate Sentencing Suggestions In The Case Of Guilty Plea And Punishment

Since the system of guilty plea and punishment was officially written into the criminal procedure law in 2018,the sentencing suggestions have been gradually accurate.The guiding opinions on the application of the leniency system of guilty plea and punishment issued by the "two high schools and three departments" in 2019 clearly stipulates that under normal circumstances,the people's procuratorate should put forward suggestions on determining the punishment and sentencing.Since then,China has officially established the sentencing suggestion mode of "focusing on the determined punishment and supplemented by the range punishment" at the legal level.This accurate sentencing trend is conducive to the implementation of the guilty plea and punishment system and improve the trial efficiency of the case.However,the actual cases of "Cai dangerous driving case" in Zhejiang Province and "Yu traffic accident case" in Beijing reflect the conflict of prosecution and trial under this background.To explore the root causes of the conflict between accurate sentencing suggestions and prosecution and trial,we can explore it from three aspects: the concept of both parties,the legal system and sentencing technology.At the conceptual level,the opposition between the prosecution and the trial in the choice of trial efficiency and trial justice value and the competition for the dominant position in the judicial structure form the confrontation between the right to seek punishment and the right to sentencing;At the level of legal system,the meaning of "general should" in Article 201 of China's criminal procedure law is vague and the definition of "obviously inappropriate" is unclear,and the theoretical and practical understanding is different,which leads to the differences in the attitudes of the prosecution and the trial towards accurate sentencing suggestions.The procuratorate pursues the excessive adoption rate of sentencing suggestions,stimulates the judges to resist more accurate sentencing suggestions,and makes the court trial a mere formality in order to solve the excessive pre-trial intervention of judges caused by contradictions;At the level of sentencing technology,the foundation of confession and punishment is weak in the early stage,the inherent motivation of the Procuratorate's sentencing suggestion ability is insufficient,and it is difficult to apply accurate sentencing in the face of major and complex cases.Starting from the root causes of the conflict,this paper puts forward the corresponding solutions: breaking the opposition between efficiency and justice,reasonably allocating judicial resources,improving case efficiency,realizing substantive disputes,and implementing the judicial model of coexistence of diversified ideas.Build a "consultative" judicial system to break the traditional confrontation through the cooperation and consultation between the prosecution and the trial;Improve the legal provisions,clarify the actual meaning of "general should" and define the degree of "obvious misconduct";The procuratorate abolished the performance requirement of "high adoption rate" and replaced it with a detailed assessment of whether the sentencing process is standard or not;The Supreme People's Procuratorate and the supreme law combine sentencing suggestion guidelines and guiding cases through intelligent data,and local procuratorates should also strengthen the study of sentencing trials in their own regions;Distinguish the types and complexity of cases,apply sentencing suggestions of different ranges at different levels,exercise the right to seek punishment and the right to measure punishment,respect each other,and strengthen their respective obligations of interpretation and reasoning.