| China’s traditional legislation takes "severe punishment and anti-corruption" as the main means of governance,severely cracking down on corruption.However,practice has shown that "severe punishment and anti-corruption" cannot improve the current situation of rampant corruption in China.To this end,the Central Committee of the Communist Party of China has made every effort to carry out political anti-corruption,institutional anti-corruption,and rule of law anti-corruption.In particular,the achievements of the 2016 national supervision system reform have been elevated to law,and China’s first supervision law and its implementation regulations have been promulgated.As a result,China’s supervision system has transformed from an administrative supervision and disciplinary inspection and supervision joint office to a national supervision and disciplinary inspection and supervision joint office,which stipulates that the supervisory organs exercise the investigation power of the vast majority of duty crime cases.And with the goal of efficient anti-corruption,the tradition of "severe punishment for corruption" has been abandoned in legislation.It is proposed to apply the lenient system of confession and punishment in the investigation stage of job crimes,encouraging public officials suspected of job crimes to voluntarily submit to the case,and obtaining the maximum anti-corruption effect with the minimum judicial cost of anti-corruption.From the perspective of the legislative determination of the system itself,the transition from "heavy regulation and anti-corruption" to "incentive and anti-corrosion" reflects the improvement of China’s legal level in anti-corruption and the completion of modernization transformation.From the current situation of judicial application,the phenomenon of corruption in China has significantly decreased.The power of supervision and investigation in our country is a power that blends party discipline investigation,political discipline investigation,and criminal investigation,which extends the high standards and strict requirements for public officials in party discipline and political discipline to the supervision and investigation of public officials suspected of committing official crimes.The requirement for confession and punishment in supervision and investigation is more proactive and proactive than that in litigation,The Supervision Law requires the investigated person to not only voluntarily confess their guilt and punishment,but also to possess one of the four special circumstances: "automatic surrender,sincere repentance and repentance","actively cooperate with the investigation,truthfully confess","actively return stolen goods,reduce losses",and "significant meritorious deeds or cases involving major national interests".There is a suspicion of mixing the lenient system of confession and punishment in litigation procedures with legal sentencing circumstances such as voluntary surrender and meritorious deeds in criminal law,At the same time,the "initiative" here carries subjective suspicion,which is not conducive to the correct application of the leniency system for confession and punishment by supervisory authorities.In addition,supervisory authorities can propose lenient punishment suggestions based on the confession and punishment of the investigated person,but the nature of lenient punishment suggestions is unclear.Supervisory regulations do not specify the content of lenient punishment suggestions,especially the leniency range,and the initiation process of lenient punishment suggestions is unclear,resulting in low or even idle application of the lenient punishment system for confession and punishment in practical supervisory investigations.Furthermore,in the internal review of lenient punishment suggestions by supervisory authorities,the composition and number of reviewers are unclear,and the approval of higher-level reviews is formalized.Supervisory regulations and the Criminal Procedure Law do not specify the way procuratorial organs and courts review and supervise lenient punishment suggestions.The ambiguity and non-standard application of confession and punishment in the supervision and investigation,as well as the closed nature of the supervision and investigation itself,have also led to incomplete human rights protection for the investigated.The application of the system of pleading guilty and accepting punishment and leniency in the above supervisory investigation is mainly related to the general procedure of proposing,approving,reviewing and supervising the substantive recognition conditions of pleading guilty and accepting punishment and leniency suggestions as stipulated in Article 31 of the Supervision Law The approval process for lenient punishment suggestions in Article 213 of the Implementation Regulations of the Supervision Law is related to the relatively vague conditions for recognizing the entity of confession and punishment in Articles 214 to 217.So the application issues studied in this article mainly focus on the recognition of guilty plea and lenient punishment suggestions in supervision and investigation.It is a systematic application research that integrates the recognition of guilty plea and lenient punishment suggestions,approval,and external review and supervision.The research idea of this article is to conduct a standardized analysis of the complexity of the recognition of leniency in confession and punishment in the Implementation Regulations of the Supervision Law,as well as the rationality of the procedures related to leniency suggestions.It also examines the current application status and existing problems,and on the basis of fully protecting the rights of the investigated person,starts from the recognition of leniency in confession and punishment,proposes leniency suggestions,and clarifies the content and binding force of leniency suggestions We will improve the reasonable system for the application of the lenient punishment system in supervision and investigation by unifying the discretion of lenient punishment and standardizing the review and supervision mode,in order to fully protect the legitimate rights and interests of the investigated,while maximizing the savings of supervision resources,in response to China’s goal of "efficient anti-corruption" and creating a good atmosphere of job integrity in society. |
PDF Full Text Request