The Research Of The Leniency In Criminal Law For Pleaded Guilty And Accepting Punishment

In the judicial practice in recent years,the number of cases handled by the court is increasing,especially the criminal cases,and the types of crimes are also changing constantly,and the difficulty is increasing and gradually complicated.At the same time,due to the limited judicial resources,most areas in China are faced with the "people less" case,the judicial staff has brought great pressure.Through the implementation of the system of leniency for guilty plea,the accused person voluntarily chooses to confess his guilt,and the judicial organ gives him leniency in sentencing,that is,leniency or mitigated punishment.For cases with little social harm,solid evidence and clear facts,the parties may be promoted to settle their disputes in advance through consultation.This is not only in line with the fundamental interests of the accused,but also can effectively alleviate the lack of judicial resources.However,it is worth noting that the implementation of the system of leniency for guilty plea is not satisfactory in practice.One of the more prominent problems is that it is difficult for the accused to obtain a definite leniency after admitting his guilt,which leads to the difficulty in realizing his expected benefits.Based on this,this paper carries out research on the subject of "leniency of the entity for guilty punishment",puts forward the proposition that guilty punishment should be leniency,and demonstrates its legitimacy and feasibility.This paper is mainly divided into four parts:The first part is to sort out and analyze the judgment documents produced in judicial practice,and extract the various problems caused by current "should to" leniency at present.The main ones are: the court regards the admission of guilt as a suspended sentence,which dissimilates the stipulation that it can be lenient;The court will confess the guilty penalty and surrender to apply together,overhead can be lenient stipulation;The extent of leniency for those accused who plead guilty is different and the application of leniency in practice lacks standardization.The result of leniency is not predictable,which makes the enthusiasm of the accused to plead guilty and punish is not high.The second part is the legislative evaluation and analysis of "should to" lenient.This part mainly elaborates from two aspects.One is that "should to" is an uncertain legal concept,which makes the result of leniency uncertain,thus causing the problem of low enthusiasm of the accused.Second,"should to" is a lack of standard concept,it is difficult to constrain the public power,which makes the judge’s discretion lack of standard,and then leads to the phenomenon of court alienation and confusion of leniency provisions and different leniency ranges of sentencing.The third part elaborates the theoretical value of "ought to" be lenient.The paper puts forward that "ought to" is the embodiment of the accused man confessed forfeit their rights,greater "ought to" is to being prosecuted the embodiment of the people in the process of criminal lawsuit main body status,with wide and greater "ought to" is its requirement,the three aspects of "ought to" from the legitimacy and necessity.The fourth part is the legislative perfection that should be lenient.It mainly includes: the legislative expression should be standardized to distinguish the admission of guilt from other sentencing circumstances;The scope of application of the case should indeed be broadened;Specify the maximum width;Establish a judicial big data sentencing recommendation system.