Study On The Dissent Right Of The Defendant In Absentia Trial Of Fugitives

After the revision of the Criminal Procedure Law,the defendant in absentia who has fled is given the right to object to the judgment in absentia in Article 295,paragraph 2,which simply defines the basic content of the right to object to the trial in absentia.The creation of the right of dissent satisfies the anti-corruption demand of chasing fugitives and recovering asset,and guarantees the participation rights of absent defendants.But for this new and significant litigation right,the existing rules are a little thin.The right to dissent is one of the more difficult and divergent issues in the process of legislation of trial in absentia.The focus of the dispute is whether the absent defendant should be endowed with the right to raise an objection without any restrictions after being filed,and whether it is reasonable for the court to unconditionally retry the case after the defendant raises an objection.Can we consider restricting the exercise of the right of objection from the reasons for objection and the scope of the case?In January 2022,Cheng Sanchang’s case was pronounced in Zhengzhou Intermediate People’s Court.Cheng Sanchang case is our "flight type" criminal trial by default in the judicial application of the first case,this case has produced strong deterrence to the corrupt fugitives.Although Cheng Sanchang has not been brought to trial and there is no applicable opportunity for the right of dissent,it has certain forward-looking value to clarify the theoretical disputes and practical problems existing in the right of dissent in criminal default trial,draw lessons from the reasonable provisions of relief rights in default trial in foreign countries,and base on the local national conditions,refining and perfecting the right of dissent in order to comprehensively safeguard the litigation rights and interests of the defendant in default.Based on this,this article consists of the introduction and four main parts:The first part discusses the dissent right of criminal default trial in theory.Firstly,it defines the attribute of the right of objection and the scope of application of the case.Secondly,from the two aspects of legislative logic and legislative situation,the author makes legislative investigation on the provisions of dissent right in the present.Finally,it analyses the legal value contained in the right of dissent in our country.The first part discusses the dissent right of criminal default trial in theory.Firstly,it defines the attribute of the right of objection and the scope of application of the case.Secondly,from the legislative logic and the legislative situation,the dissenting right regulation is investigated.Finally,it analyzes the legal value of the dissent right in criminal default trial.The second part analyzes the current problems and shortcomings of the right to dissent in our country.When the right of objection is activated,the legislation does not explicitly mention the form and time of objection,which increases the difficulty of judicial application.In the examination of the right of objection,the scope of application of the right of objection is relatively loose,and there is no reason to raise the right of objection.In the retrial after objection,the level of the retrial court,the penalty range of the retrial judgment and the judicial relief after the retrial all need to be improved.The third part compares the theoretical basis and legal system of the relief right in criminal default trial set outside the country,divides the current relief rules in criminal default trial outside the country into two categories:general relief mode and special relief mode,and compares and analyzes the theoretical basis and application status of the two relief modes,so as to provide reference for improving the objection right with Chinese characteristics.The fourth part puts forward feasible suggestions for the refinement and perfection of the right of objection.When the right of objection is activated,the form of objection should be regulated and the time limit for exercising the right of objection should be limited.In the examination of objection,the scope of the cases to which the right of objection can be applied should be limited and the reasons for objection should be regulated.In the case of retrial after objection,the level of court shall be standardized,the range of retrial adjudication shall be limited,and the relief of retrial result shall be perfected.