A Preliminary Discussion on Sentencing Recommendations under the Leniency System for Plea of Guilty and Acceptance of Punishment

Abstract

The system of leniency for confession is an important reform in criminal proceedings in China. By introducing the negotiation mechanism between the prosecution and defense, it aims to improve the efficiency of litigation, save judicial resources, and protect the legitimate rights and interests of the accused. Sentencing proposal plays a key role in this system, is an important embodiment of the procuratorial organ to exercise the right of public prosecution, and has an important influence on the final judgment result. In recent years, the system of leniency for confession has achieved remarkable results in practice. Data show that the proportion of cases applicable to the system increased year by year, and the conviction rate of first-instance service also remained stable and higher than that of non-guilty plea cases. At the same time, the proportion of the procuratorial organs put forward to determine the punishment and sentencing has been increasing, and has been widely adopted by the courts, which shows that the procuratorial organs have done more and more in place in the aspects of sentencing consultation and interpretation of cases. However, there are also problems in sentencing recommendations in practice, such as the prominent conflict of "law" and "prosecution", the effectiveness of sentencing recommendations is not clear, and the information asymmetry and dominant power in sentencing consultation. In order to solve these problems, it is necessary to start from the two levels of legislation and practice, clarify the mandatory binding force of sentencing suggestions, strengthen the cooperation between legal and prosecution, improve the professional quality of prosecutors and judges, and strengthen social supervision and public participation. Through these measures, we can further improve the system of lenient punishment for confession, promote judicial justice, improve judicial efficiency, and better serve the judicial practice and social harmony and stability.