Research On Defendant Rescission Problems In Leniency System Of Confession And Punishment

Leniency system of confession and punishment is a major system introduced to implement the criminal policy of combining leniency with severity,which plays an important role in resolving social conflicts.With the continuous deepening of this system,some problems in the system have gradually emerged,and the defendant’s rescission is one of the issues that cannot be ignored.The defendant’s rescission refers to the defendant’s voluntary confession of guilt and punishment during a certain stage of litigation,and their denial of the specific content of the previous stage’s confession and punishment during the trial process of the case.In judicial practice,the defendant can retract at any stage of the lawsuit after pleading guilty and accepting punishment.The content of the rescission is rich,including the retract of the confession,the retract of the punishment,and the retract of the procedural application.The consequences of rescission are also relatively complex,which may involve not only procedural conversion and affect litigation efficiency,but also the understanding of the operating mode of the leniency system of confession and punishment,as well as the nature of the confession and punishment statement.The defendant’s rescission has both legitimacy and risk.Through the analysis and research of current relevant legal provisions and 266 cases selected from the relevant judicial practice,it is found that there are mainly the following problems in the defendant’s rescission: firstly,there is a lack of legal norms regarding the defendant’s rescission,and there is a lack of systematic legal norms to protect the defendant’s right to retract.At the same time,there are no detailed rules to reasonably limit the phenomenon of the defendant’s abuse of rights and arbitrary rescission in judicial practice.Secondly,the defendant may face adverse consequences after rescission,and the defendant may face the risk of increased punishment after rescission.The original confession of the crime is still used as evidence,and the procuratorial organs limit the defendant’s right to appeal.The reasons for the defendant’s rescission are diverse,and behind these diverse reasons lies the imperfect supporting measures in the operation of Leniency system of confession and punishment.Specifically,the main reasons are the insufficient voluntary nature of the defendant’s confession and punishment,the limited legal assistance of the lawyer on duty,and insufficient precision in sentencing recommendations.Examining the defendant’s rescission system in the relevant systems of the United States and Germany outside the region can provide reference for our country.Our country can improve the system of defendant’s rescission in leniency system of confession and punishment from the following aspects: firstly,standardize the rules for the operation of rescission rights.By amending legal provisions,it is clear that the defendant should be granted the right to retract,while also ensuring their right to appeal;At the same time,normative documents will be issued to reasonably restrict the operation of the right of retract from multiple aspects.The second is to ensure the judicial fairness of the defendant after rescission,and clarify the principle of no malicious punishment after the defendant retracts;Standardize the effectiveness of the defendant’s guilty confession after withdrawing;Improve the relevant provisions of the procuratorial organs for counterappeal,and achieve a balance between safeguarding the defendant’s right to retract and improving the supervisory power of the procuratorial organs.The third is to improve the relevant supporting measures for the defendant to retract.Refine the disclosure obligation of specialized agencies,improve the evidence disclosure system,and strengthen the voluntary review of defendants’ confession and punishment to ensure their voluntary confession and punishment;Strengthen the protection of the rights of duty lawyers to more effectively play their legal assistance role;Refine sentencing guidance standards and enhance prosecutors’ awareness to further promote the precision of sentencing recommendations.