Research On The Value Basis And Fulfillment Of The System Of Lenient Punishments For Confession

The leniency system for confession to crimes and acceptance of punishment(the“leniency system”)is an important part of China's judicial reform.With new amendments to the Criminal Procedure Law,relevant experience gained from pilot programs of the leniency system has been written into the law and invoking the system when trying criminal cases may become a norm in future judicial practices.Therefore,it is imperative to have a clear and comprehensive theoretical overview,as well as understanding towards its value foundations and how it is presently applied in judicial practices,in order to identify existing problems and propose suitable suggestions,thereby contributing to the improvement of the leniency system.The first chapter of the paper begins with a review of theoretical studies of the leniency system,followed by an analysis of the relationship between the system and voluntary surrender and confession,as well as plea bargaining,revealing that voluntary surrender and confession which entails the judicial policy of “balancing leniency with severity” for criminal cases is the source of leniency for confession to crimes and acceptance of punishment.The leniency system is not a mechanical imitation of the plea bargaining of the Anglo-American legal system as they are essentially different from each other.In the second chapter,relevant provisions of law are analyzed to demonstrate that the leniency system is built upon such value foundations as restraint of criminal law,justice and efficiency.While affirming its justice and efficiency values,this paper argues that the leniency system also reflects restraint of criminal law,thus embodying the value of restraint.The leniency system has been widely applied after its pilot programs were implemented.In the third chapter,specific cases where leniency for confession to crimes and acceptance of punishment is applicable are analyzed to identify problems existing in judicial practices,such as defendants withdrawing confession to crime and acceptance of punishment,difficulties faced by procuratorates when making sentencing proposals and a lack of protection for victims' rights and interests,posing obstacles in fulfilling the restraint,justice and efficiency values of the leniency system.To address these problems,corresponding suggestions are proposed in the fourth chapter.First,emphasis should be put on judges' obligations to inform a defendant of the specific content related to confession to crimes and acceptance of punishment and to examine the voluntariness concerning the affidavit of such confession and acceptance.When determining the circumstances of confession to crimes and acceptance of punishment,judges should focus on opinions of the defendant,and procuratorates should keep credibility after signing the affidavit with a defendant instead of arbitrarily altering prior promises.Second,by classifying,summarizing and differentiating cases where the leniency was warranted,sentences should be proposed by referring to similar cases in order to improve the reasonableness of proposed sentences and make such procuratorates' proposals more acceptable to the defendant and the court.In addition,when trying cases where the leniency system is applicable,it is crucial to protect rights and interests of the victim as it determines the social outcomes of the leniency system.To that end,the victim's participation right in procedures,particularly the victim's participation in expressing opinions about the sentencing proposals and his or her substantial participation in procedures,should be sufficiently fulfilled.Finally,ensuring a balanced relationship between compensation-based criminal reconciliation and leniency for confession to crimes and acceptance of punishment could not only help the victim to receive actual compensation but also avoid an impression of “buying ways out of jail” brought by the leniency policy.Only by correctly dealing with the relationship between the judicial authority,defendant and victim and effectively addressing the contradictions arising therefrom can the restraint,justice and efficiency values of the leniency system be fulfilled and ideal functioning of the system be achieved.