An Empirical Research On "Obviously Inappropriateness" Of Sentencing Recommendations In Cases Related To Admitting Guilt And Accepting Punishment

The leniency system for admitting guilt and accepting punishment is gradually being practiced and popularized in China,and the appropriateness of sentencing recommendations has become a key factor for the continuous operation of this system.Among them,the identification of "obviously inappropriate" sentencing recommendations not only caused controversy,but also hindered the further development of the leniency system for admitting guilt and accepting punishment to some extent.The analysis of what constitutes "obviously inappropriate" sentencing recommendations and how to identify "obviously inappropriate" sentencing recommendations is not only related to bridging the differences between prosecution and trial on sentencing issues,but also to the protection of the defendant’s litigation interests,which substantially affects the with the development of my country’s negotiated justice.Therefore,it is necessary to examine the actual situation of sentencing recommendations,explore the dilemma faced by the determination of "obviously inappropriate" sentencing recommendations,and reflect on and solve them,in order to lay a solid foundation for the benign operation of the sentencing recommendation mechanism in cases related to admitting guilt and accepting punishment.The leniency system for admitting guilt and accepting punishment runs through both substantive law and procedural law,and the review of the status quo of determining sentencing recommendations as "obviously inappropriateness" should also be based on the dual aspects of substantive and procedural aspects.In terms of substantive aspects,empirical analysis shows different aspects of the difference between sentencing recommendations and sentencing rulings,including the tendency of judicial organs to make sentencing rulings higher than recommended sentences,the diversity of manifestations of differences in penalty types,and The degree of deviation of the overall small penalty value,and based on the information of the judgment documents,we will further explore the factors that cause this difference,mainly the form of sentencing recommendations,the charges accused by the prosecution and the facts of the sentencing circumstances;The agency’s response found that the adjustment of sentencing recommendations does not necessarily follow the provisions of the relevant adjustment procedures,and by summarizing the judgments of the second instance against protests due to unadjusted procedures,it further confirmed the universality of the phenomenon that the adjustment procedures are not necessarily followed.Taking care of the status quo promotes in-depth reflection on the "obvious inappropriateness" of sentencing recommendations.Among them,there are not only the troubles that the identification factors are complicated and untraceable,but also the weak binding force of the sentencing recommendation adjustment procedure,which is embodied as a result-oriented sentencing recommendation "obviously inappropriate" identification mode.However,the lack of uniform and clear sentencing standards,the large discretion of judicial personnel in sentencing,and the lack of procedural space for carrying sentencing recommendations as "obviously inappropriate",all answered the practical reasons from different perspectives.But looking at the deep-seated contradictions,there are not only the indecision between the two ideas of "negotiation" and "policy implementation" in legislation,but also the imbalance between the two logics of authority and negotiation in the operation mechanism of sentencing recommendations.In order to straighten out the behavioral logic of "obviously inappropriate" determination of sentencing recommendations,it is necessary to clarify the boundaries between the prosecution and defense.From the perspective of protecting the interests of the accused,it should be ensured that they voluntarily choose whether to make relevant confessions,and at the same time try their best to exert the substantive role of the court’s judicial review power to prevent the invasion of unfair sentencing consent.From the perspective of the relationship between prosecution and trial,the role of the procuratorial organ and the judicial organ should be abided by,and the sentencing recommendation should be based on whether it makes a comprehensive and appropriate evaluation of the relevant facts of the case as the ultimate basis.In order to achieve a benign interaction between sentencing recommendations and sentencing decisions,it is also necessary to optimize the procedural factors.The premise of this judgment is that refining the "obviously inappropriateness" substantive standards is still a long-term project.By strengthening the interpretation reasoning about whether sentencing recommendations are adopted or not and regulating the procedures for not adopting sentencing recommendations,effective and standardized procedures can be used to fill the operation of the "obviously inappropriateness" determination mechanism for sentencing recommendations.